Five self-contained flats at 82-84 High Street, Ruislip

“Proposal: Creation of 5no. self-contained flats with associated cycle and bin storage, following the change of use of first floor from office (Class E) to residential (Class C3), the erection of a two storey rear extension at first floor level, an infill first floor extension, and the retention and reconfiguration of the Class E unit at ground floor level with alterations to fenestration.”

“Planning permission is sought for the creation of five self-contained flats through the change of use of the first floor from Class E to Class C3, the erection of a two- storey rear extension at first and second floor level, alterations to rear building at first floor level and the retention and reconfiguration of the ground-floor commercial unit. Associated cycle and refuse storage is also proposed.”

“The application site comprises 82–84 High Street, a three-storey mixed-use corner building located on the southern side of Ruislip High Street within the Primary Shopping Area. The ground floor accommodates a Class E commercial unit, with former office accommodation at first floor and an existing residential flat at second floor level. To the rear of the application site is a two-storey rear block which fronts onto a pedestrian alleyway.”

“To the west, adjacent to the alleyway, the site adjoins the Thomas Moore building, a six and five-storey residential block with balconies orientated towards the alleyway and the rear of the application property , sited next to a large car park. To the north, the site adjoins No. 80, 80A and 80B High Street, which contains commercial floorspace at ground floor and residential accommodation above. To the south, the site adjoins No.”

“The most relevant planning history relates to application 78935/APP/2024/1992, which sought extensions and alterations to the building and the conversion of the existing first -floor office (Class E) to residential use to provide five flats. This application was refused in October 2024 on grounds including loss of class E space, poor amenity, impact on neighbouring amenity and lack of air quality mitigation.”

“The subsequent appeal (APP/R5510/W/24/3356952) was dismissed in July 2025. In dismissing the appeal, the Inspector upheld the Council’s concerns relating to poor outlook to both bedrooms of Flat 3, the lack of private outdoor amenity provision for four of the proposed units, and the tunnelling effect created by the boundary fence in relation to the first -floor rear bedroom window of No. 80A.”

“The site comprises a Locally Listed building within the Ruislip Village Conservation Area. The proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area, consistent with the conclusions reached by the Planning Inspector on the earlier appeal. The scheme retains the existing High Street frontage, introduces modest rear extensions, and delivers a design response considered appropriate to the established built form.”

“It is recommended that planning permission is granted subject to conditions (Appendix 1), as the development would not cause harm to neighbouring amenity or highway safety, and would preserve the character and appearance of the Ruislip Village Conservation Area.”

“The Conservation Officer raises no objection in principle to the conversion of the upper floors to residential use. However, concerns are expressed regarding the extent of the proposed rear extension to the Locally Listed building.”

“Further concerns relate to the internal arrangement of Flat 2, which is considered to have an awkward layout with poor daylight, limited outlook towards a blank wall, and potential privacy issues due to its proximity to the communal terrace. The Officer therefore recommends that the rear extension is omitted and that only one flat should be provided per floor above ground level.”

“The application was also the subject of a Member call-in. The Ward Councillor expressed concern that the proposal represents overdevelopment with inadequate amenity space for future occupiers and unacceptable impacts on existing residential amenity, including potential loss of light to nearby properties.”

“V. Disturbance from construction activity, including noise, dust and traffic disruption Disturbance arising from construction works, such as noise, dust, and traffic, is not a material planning consideration in itself as it is temporary in nature. However, to minimise impacts, a Construction Management Plan would be secured by condition requiring details of working hours, vehicle access, site set -up and mitigation measures.”

“Members referenced the report which noted that while the Conservation Officer had objected to the proposed two storey rear extension, the Planning Inspector for the…”

“Members asked if there had been a written submission from the Member who called-in the application. The Chair confirmed that there had not.”

“Officers’ recommendation for approval was moved, seconded and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.”