The meeting of the Hillingdon Planning Committee on 05 December 2024 was scheduled to consider planning applications for five sites across the borough. These included a controversial application to extend a house on Hayes End Drive in Charville, an application to change the use of Yiewsley Court in Yiewsley, and three householder applications for extensions to properties on Fairfield Avenue and Cavendish Avenue in Ruislip, and on Berberis Walk in West Drayton. The committee were also scheduled to confirm the minutes of their previous meeting, which took place on 5 November 2024.

16 Hayes End Drive, Hayes

The application for 16 Hayes End Drive, submitted by Mr Amandeep Singh, was for the erection of a part single, part two storey side and rear extension, a loft rear dormer extension with 2 rooflights to the front roof slope, and a front porch.

This application was called in because it had received a petition of objection signed by 52 residents, and other objections from local residents. The petition and letters of objection expressed several concerns. Firstly, they noted the narrowness of Wilmar Close, suggesting that the extension would worsen existing parking problems on the close, especially if the extension was subsequently separated from the original dwelling and occupied by a separate household. Secondly, objectors suggested that the extensions to the property would make it more likely that the building would be occupied as a HMO ¹. Finally, the objectors argued that the proposed side-facing windows and doors on the extension would negatively affect the privacy of neighbouring properties, pointing out that similar concerns had been raised about several previous applications for the site which had been refused in the last three years.

The case officer responded to each of these concerns in the report. Firstly, it was noted that the application was submitted as a householder planning application and did not propose subdivision of the plot. Secondly, the case officer noted that the property already benefitted from permitted development rights to be used as a C4 (small HMO) dwellinghouse. Finally, in response to concerns about privacy, the report explained that amended plans had been submitted that removed the side-facing windows and doors.

The case officer's report recommended that permission for the development be granted subject to a number of conditions, including one ensuring that:

The development hereby approved shall not be sub-divided to form additional dwelling units without a further express planning permission from the Local Planning Authority.

The report also recommended a condition requiring the retention of trees on the site, and a condition requiring the submission of a landscaping scheme for the site.

Yiewsley Court, Horton Road, West Drayton

The application for Yiewsley Court was submitted by the London Borough of Hillingdon, and proposed the change of use of the existing block of flats from supported housing (Use Class C2) to temporary homeless accommodation (Sui Generis) ². The proposal also included changes to the internal areas to provide four additional self-contained flats to accommodate a total of 29 units, an increase of 4 flats.

The report explained that the scheme was part of the council's strategy for tackling homelessness:

The proposed development has been drawn up in consultation with the Housing Services Team and has been designed to meet a specific need identified by the Council in relation to temporary accommodation for homeless households.

It explained that the accommodation would be used as:

move on accommodation

to assist homeless people to move out of temporary or shared accommodation and into more permanent, independent living. The report explained that the scheme would help to reduce the use of Bed and Breakfast accommodation.

The report stated that two objections had been received from neighbouring residents, who expressed concern about light spillage from the existing exterior lighting and objected to the prospect of the proposed temporary accommodation being occupied by convicted criminals or drug addicts. The report explained that the application proposed no changes to exterior lighting, and that the proposal would provide temporary homeless accommodation.

The case officer's report recommended that planning permission be granted subject to several conditions, including one restricting the use of the site:

The use hereby permitted shall be restricted to temporary homeless accommodation, (move-on accommodation) for those in need as identified by the Council.

and one controlling noise levels:

No plant or machinery shall be installed or used externally at the site other than in accordance with details that shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall include the location of the plant or machinery, details of any noise mitigation measures, and the hours of use.

47 Fairfield Avenue, Ruislip

The application for 47 Fairfield Avenue was submitted by Mr A Cherukmudi, and was for the erection of a single storey side and rear wraparound extension following demolition of the existing conservatory, and conversion of the garage into habitable space. It also proposed the installation of external steps and a patio area.

The application was called in by a ward Councillor, who expressed concern that the development would compromise the structural integrity of the attached garage which belonged to the residents of 19 Grasmere Avenue.

The case officer's report explained that:

Whilst these concerns are duly noted by Planning Officers, the structural integrity of the existing garage and its relationship with the adjoining garage would not represent a material consideration in the assessment of this application.

It continued:

Were the proposal to be considered acceptable, it would also be subject to other regulations that deal more specifically structural issues including Building Regulations and the Party Wall Act (if applicable).

Three letters of objection were received from neighbours, expressing several concerns about the development. Firstly, several objectors expressed concern about the structural integrity of the existing garage and about the impact of the development on the attached garage, suggesting that the party wall between the two garages was not suitable for modern design standards. Secondly, several objectors questioned whether Building Regulations checks would take place, and requested detailed structural calculations and architectural drawings. Thirdly, several objectors suggested that the proposed development would negatively affect their privacy and the levels of light that they received. Finally, several objectors requested clarity about the number of site visits from building control and planning officers.

In response to the objections, the case officer explained that several amended plans had been submitted to reduce the scale of the development and mitigate the loss of light and privacy to neighbouring properties. They also noted that building regulations checks were not a material consideration under the planning assessment.

The case officer's report recommended that planning permission be granted subject to a number of conditions, including one to protect the amenities of neighbours:

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended) (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no additional windows, doors or other openings shall be constructed in the walls or roof slopes of the development hereby approved.

and one requiring the submission of details of a privacy screen:

Prior to the commencement of development, details of a 1.8 metre high close boarded timber fence shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

45 Cavendish Avenue, Ruislip

The application for 45 Cavendish Avenue, submitted by the London Borough of Hillingdon, proposed the erection of a single storey rear extension to a semi-detached bungalow.

The report explained that the overall depth of the extension would be 0.91 metres greater than is usually permitted for semi-detached properties, but would not extend beyond the single-storey rear extension of the attached neighbouring property, 43 Cavendish Avenue. It suggested that:

a slight departure from the policy guidelines is acceptable in this instance, as it would not impact the established character along this section of Cavendish Avenue.

The case officer's report recommended that planning permission be granted subject to a number of conditions, including one requiring that the materials used in the construction of the extension match those used on the existing dwelling.

35 Berberis Walk, West Drayton

The application for 35 Berberis Walk, submitted by the London Borough of Hillingdon, proposed the erection of a 3.6 metre deep single storey rear extension to a two-storey end of terraced house.

One representation was received from a neighbour, who noted that the proposed development had been designed for a disabled tenant/resident, and requested information about how they would access the property. The objector also suggested that there was no parking or designated disabled parking available on the street, and expressed concern about delivery vehicles accessing the property during the construction phase.

The case officer's report responded to the objection, explaining that:

The proposed development relates solely to the erection of a single storey rear extension. The application has not been applied for under a disability exemption. However, level access if shown on the entry and exit points of the dwelling for improved access. It should be noted that amendments to entry points other than within the extension proposed, do not require the benefit of planning permission.

It also noted that parking matters had been discussed in the report, and that it was not considered necessary for the proposed development to include additional parking as this solely related to a single storey rear extension.

The case officer's report recommended that planning permission be granted subject to a number of conditions, including one requiring that the materials used in the construction of the extension match those of the existing dwelling.