Nine flats at 90 Long Lane, Ickenham
Summary of planning committee decision
Decided by Hillingdon Planning Committee on 14 Oct 2026.
What was proposed
The application proposed demolishing the existing dwelling and building nine flats with parking, cycle spaces, landscaping and shared amenities.
“The proposal would provide 9 car parking spaces, including one disabled parking bay, 20 cycle parking spaces, visitor cycle parking, refuse and recycling storage, private amenity space in the form of balconies and terraces, and communal landscaped amenity space. The development would utilise the existing vehicular access from Long Lane and retain a separate pedestrian access.”
Officer report
The site and surroundings
The site is a detached dwelling in a spacious residential plot within the Ickenham Village Conservation Area, surrounded mainly by landscaped homes.
“The surrounding area is predominantly residential in character and forms part of the Ickenham Village Conservation Area. Long Lane is characterised by individually designed detached and semidetached dwellings set within generous plots, with mature landscaping and trees making a significant contribution to the verdant character of the area.”
“The site lies within Flood Zone 1 and has a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) of 3, on a scale of 0 to 6b where 6b is the highest, indicating a moderate accessibility to public transport. The application site is also located within the Ickenham Village Conservation Area. The application site to the rear and the neighbouring property to the rear (known as Dormy House) are also covered by Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs 438 and 482a).”
Officer report
What officers recommended
Officers recommended approval, considering that revisions overcame earlier concerns and that housing benefits outweighed less than substantial conservation harm.
“The proposed housing mix includes 2x three-bedroom units capable of supporting family living, aligning with the Hillingdon Local Plan, the London Plan, and the National Planning Policy Framework 2026 (NPPF). The latest revision is an improvement to the previous two refused schemes through reductions in the proposed width, depth and overall massing, alongside amendments to the design of the rear wing and overall appearance and materials.”
“The proposal is therefore considered to cause less than substantial harm to the Ickenham Village Conservation Area, mainly through changes to its setting. In accordance with Policy HE6 of the NPPF (2026), where harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset is identified, that harm must be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.”
Officer report
The committee decision
The application was refused for reasons outlined in the discussion.
“8905/APP/2026/1385 RESOLVED: That the application be refused for the reasons outlined in the discussion. 8.”
Minutes
The members' reasons
The resolution gives these reasons:
“For the reasons outlined in the discussion. 8. Tavistock Works, Tavistock Road -”
Minutes
Source: the council's minutes, quoted word for word.
Sources
- Hillingdon Planning Committee minutes, 14 October 2026
- Agenda and papers (council website)
Source: Plota analysis of Hillingdon's committee minutes and officer report. Quotations are the council's own words; headings and summaries are Plota's.
Committee decisions and nationwide planning applications, in one API
The Plota API returns planning applications from every council we cover, each with its decision, whether a committee or officers decided it, and the committee date. Build it into your own tools.
See the API →At the meeting
- Committee
- Hillingdon Planning Committee
- Council
- Hillingdon
- Date
- Wednesday 14 October 2026
- Recommendation
- Officers recommended approval
- Committee decided
- Refused, against officer advice
- Minutes
- The council's minutes
- Meeting
- Agenda and papers (council website)
- Application
- View application →
- All decisions
- Hillingdon committee decisions →
This committee's year
65 decisions in the 12 months to this meeting, 1 against officer advice.
Source: Plota analysis of the committee's minutes.