81-bedroom care home at 12-18 Pield Heath Road & 2 Pield Heath Avenue, Hillingdon

The site and surroundings

The site contained four residential properties and a bed and breakfast in a residential area opposite public open space, with moderate public transport access.

“The character of the immediate area surrounding the application site is residential, notwithstanding that part of the application site is in use as a Bed and Breakfast. Moorcraft Park, a large area of public open space, sits opposite the site.”

“The site forms part of the declared Hillingdon Air Quality Management Area. The site also sits in between two declared Air Quality Focus Areas, including the Uxbridge Road Focus Area to the east and Hillingdon Hospital Focus Area to the west. Green Belt land is also designated a short distance to the south. The site has a moderate Public Transport Accessibilit y Level (PTAL) of 3.”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

Officers considered the proposal acceptable in principle and compatible with planning objectives, subject to conditions and a legal agreement securing mitigation and contributions.

“The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF 2024) at paragraph 124 encourages planning decisions to promote the effective use of land in meeting the need for homes and other uses, while safeguarding and improving the environment and ensuring healthy living conditions. Paragraph 125c further states that substantial weight should be given to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes and other identified needs.”

“In light of the above and having regard to the fallback position afforded by the extant 60-bed care home permission, the proposed intensification of the site to provide an 81-bed care facility is considered acceptable in principle. The proposal aligns with national, regional and local planning policy objectives to optimise land, deliver specialist housing, and support sustainable patterns of development.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Three objections raised concerns about appearance, expansion, care-home concentration, traffic, parking, need, noise and construction, while one representation supported the scheme.

“Planning Officer Response Three individual letters of objection have been received I. Not in keeping. Discussed in paragraphs 7.9 to 7.17.”

“II. Concerns about further expansion. The acceptability of the proposal is discussed throughout the committee report. III. Overconcentration of care homes within 1km. Discussed in paragraph 7.6 IV. Traffic, parking and road safety concerns. Discussed in paragraphs 7.79 to 7.93. V. No needs analysis for this specific area. Discussed in paragraph 7.7. VI. Noise and disturbance during construction.”

Officer report

Ward councillor’s concerns

The ward councillor objected over parking, highway safety, local need, construction disruption, increased visitors and deliveries, and harm to neighbouring amenity.

“Parking and Highway Safety Impacts: The proposed 33% increase in care home capacity will significantly exacerbate on- street parking demand in the surrounding area, particularly on Pield Heath Avenue, where parking is already constrained due to its proximity to Hillingdon Hospital and local amenities. The increase in visitors, staff, and associated deliveries will likely lead to parking overspill, obstructing driveways and creating potential safety hazards.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The ward councillor spoke against the application and asked the committee to refuse it or defer it for a site visit.

What members debated

Members discussed the five-space parking increase, congestion, capacity, landscaping, biodiversity, local need and whether refusal reasons would be robust.

“Members asked for clarification on the increase in parking. Officers clarified that the number of parking spaces would increase from 14 to 19, and that the ratio would remain at 0.2 spaces per unit.”

“Members noted a previous site visit and highlighted potential congestion problems. Most local roads had a parking management scheme, and five additional spaces appeared inadequate for a 33% increase in capacity. However, reasons for refusal needed to be robust and refusal on parking grounds alone may be overturned at appeal.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

Members moved and seconded the officers’ recommendation, voted for it, and approved the application as recommended.

“Officers’ recommendations were moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, agreed.”

“RESOLVED: That the application be approved as per officers’ recommendations…”

Minutes