Issue - meetings

RESOLVED:

That Cabinet:

1)    Endorse and recommend the revised draft Local Development Scheme (LDS) (Appendix 1) for adoption by Full Council.

2)    Note that following adoption of the LDS the Planning Policy team will notify stakeholders, including updating the Planning Policy pages of the Hillingdon website, and emailing contacts on the Local Plan mailing list.

3)    Note that if new planning regulations are introduced prior to Full Council, that the LDS would be adopted as a Local Plan timetable under the new plan-making system.

Reasons for decision

The Cabinet Member for Planning, Housing and Growth presented a report seeking Cabinet endorsement of a revised Local Development Scheme (LDS), to be recommended to full Council for adoption. It was noted that the LDS was a statutory document that set out the timetable for preparing the Borough’s Local Plan, which would shape development in Hillingdon over the next 15 years. The Cabinet Member explained that the plan must be credible, up to date and capable of being found sound.

Although officers had progressed work and built a strong evidence base, it had become clear that the existing timetable adopted in 2025 was no longer deliverable due to major external changes. The Cabinet Member highlighted three key risks: significant increases in Hillingdon’s housing target under the revised national standard method, alongside expected higher targets in the new London Plan,  national planning reforms under the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act introducing a new plan making system from January 2027 and uncertainty regarding Heathrow Airport expansion, with a revised National Policy Statement expected in 2026. Proceeding under the existing timetable risked producing an unsound Local Plan.

The Cabinet Member advised that the revised LDS would provide a more realistic and robust pathway, aligning the Local Plan with the new national system and enabling proper consideration of housing need, the Green Belt and Heathrow. It was noted that costs were covered within existing budgets and Government funding. The Cabinet Member thanked officers for their extensive work in a fast-moving policy context and noted that the revised approach would avoid rushing a flawed plan, ensuring a sound and defensible document that placed residents first.

Alternative options considered and rejected

Alternative options, including a partial plan, were considered but rejected due to higher costs, additional consultation requirements and the inability to address core strategic issues.