Two three-bedroom homes at 29 Clammas Way, Cowley, Uxbridge

What was proposed

The application proposed demolishing a bungalow and building two two-storey, three-bedroom homes with parking, gardens, cycle and refuse storage.

“Proposal: Erection of 2x two storey, 3 bed dwelling with associated parking, amenity space, cycle and refuse stores, following the demolition of existing bungalow…”

“Planning permission is sought for the Erection of 2x two storey, 3 bed dwelling with associated parking, amenity space, cycle and refuse stores, following the demolition of existing bungalow.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

An earlier application for demolishing the bungalow and building a detached six-bedroom home was withdrawn before determination.

“A list of the relevant planning history related to the property can be found in Appendix 2.”

“A previous application at the site for the ‘Proposed demolition of existing detached bungalow and erection of a detached 6 -bedroom dwelling with associated parking spaces and external works under reference 77795/APP/2023/176 was withdrawn prior to determination.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the proposal would provide housing without significant harm to neighbours, local character or the highway network.

“Due regard has been given to local residents’ objections, including the petition against the application, however , it is recommended that planning permission is granted subject to conditions (Appendix 1) by virtue that the development would not have a significant impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties, nor would it harm the character and appearance of the area, and it would not have a harmful impact on the highway network.”

“The Council is currently unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites, with the most recent position statement (01/04/26) confirming a 2.5 -year supply. As such, the relevant housing policies are considered out-of-date and the ‘tilted balance’ set out in paragraph 11(d) of the NPPF is engaged.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The Highway Authority raised no objection, while access, waste and contamination consultees accepted the scheme subject to conditions or provided no objection.

“Revised plans have been submitted to address some concerns relating to the design of the internal spaces. The application is now acceptable from an accessibility perspective, subject to conditions pertaining to the submission of further step free access details and conformity to M4(2) standards.”

“Having consider the submitted application in relation to our land contamination record, please be advise that, we have no objection to the proposed development.”

Officer report

Objections raised

A petition with 51 signatures and four individual objections raised concerns about overdevelopment, character, drainage, parking, privacy, noise, waste and possible HMO use.

“Hillingdon Planning Committee – 21 ST April 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press  before the Council to indicate that the units would be used as HMOs. Any future change of use would be subject to a separate planning application and assessment. Concerns regarding refuge storage, collection and non- compliance with waste rules. Adequate refuse and recycling storage is provided within the rear gardens of each dwelling.”

“Hillingdon Planning Committee – 21 ST April 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press  8. Concerns regarding harm to neighbouring amenity in terms if loss of light, loss of privacy and increased activity and noise. Discussed at sections 7.18 – 7.30 4 individual letters of objection have been received. I. The proposed development represents over intensification of the site conflicting with the established character of the area. Discussed at section 7.7 – 7.15”

Officer report

Who addressed the committee

A written objection from a local resident was read aloud, and a written objection from the ward councillor requested a site visit and refusal or deferral.

Members’ questions

Members asked about public transport, parking and bedroom sizes, and were told the site had very poor accessibility, compliant parking and compliant internal space.

“The Committee noted that the officer report concluded the proposal complied with relevant policy. Members sought clarification on public transport accessibility and parking and it was confirmed that the site had a PTAL rating of 1b but benefited from nearby bus routes between Uxbridge High Street and Cowley. It was also confirmed that one parking space per dwelling was policy compliant, parking restrictions applied and future residents would be eligible for parking permits.”

“Clarification was also sought on bedroom sizes and it was confirmed that all units met the minimum internal space standards set out in the London Plan.”

Minutes

The vote

The officer recommendation was moved, seconded and unanimously agreed by the committee.

“The officers’ recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to the vote, was unanimously agreed.”

Minutes

The decision

The application was approved in accordance with the officer recommendation.

“RESOLVED: That the application be approved as per officer recommendation.”

Minutes