Development Intent
AtlasHillingdonPolicy
Planning Atlas›Hillingdon›Policy
PolicyPoliticalCommitteeOfficersAgents & developersViabilityMapAppeals
Hillingdon · Local Plan · Policy

Policy.

The policies that actually decide outcomes in Hillingdon — how often each is cited in the officers' own reports, where it bites hardest, and who leans on it. The plan text is the rule; this is the behaviour.

5,275 citations1,136 reports parsedHillingdon Local Plan (adopted)
Hillingdon · policy map
Where policy is quoted most — by ward
Fewer ~0
More citations ~118
At a glance
5,275[1]
Total citations
across 1,136 officer reports
1%[1]
Citations on refusals
borough baseline — see the In refusals column
Hillingdon Local Plan[1]
Development plan
most-cited framework in reports
—
CIL (residential)
schedule not yet sourced
—
5-year land supply
position statement not yet sourced
Citations by policy — what gets invoked 🔒click a policy — reshapes the map
DMHB11 · Design of New Development
1,025
DMT2 · Highways Impacts
438
DMHB14 · Trees and Landscaping
428
DMT6 · Vehicle Parking
359
DMHB12 · Streets and Public Realm sets out how we can
295
DMEI1 · Living Walls and Roofs and on-site Vegetation
271
DMT1 · Managing Transport Impacts
226
DMEI10 · Water Management, Efficiency, and Quality
205
Full citation counts are subscriber dataSubscribe to see the counts →
What kind of ground gets cited[1]
Housing delivery2%
Design & heritage24%
Amenity1%
Highways & transport20%
Sustainability11%
Other grounds41%

Grounds classified from each policy's own cited title. Click a slice — reshapes the map.

The policies that decide outcomes — Hillingdon

Every plan policy recurring in Hillingdon officer reports, ranked by how often it's cited. Click a policy for its full record — and the officer who leans on it most.

PolicyCitationsIn refusalsAppeal survivalCites it most
DMHB11 — Design of New Development1,0250% · 0.2×75%subscriber data
DMT2 — Highways Impacts4381% · 2.0×80%subscriber data
DMHB14 — Trees and Landscaping4280% · 0.0×80%subscriber data
The full policy roster and per-policy officer breakdown are subscriber data.Subscribe to see all policies →

Citation counts from Hillingdon officer reports.[1] “In refusals” = share of a policy's citations that sit on refusals; × = that share against the borough average (needs 20+ citations). Appeal survival = of PINS appeal decisions citing the policy, the share dismissed (refusal held); a rate needs 5+ decisive appeals, fewer show the count. Methodology →

The borough framework

The development-plan documents Hillingdon officers actually cite, counted across parsed reports. CIL and land-supply figures aren't sourced yet and are shown as pending, not estimated.

Most cited
Hillingdon Local Plan (adopted)
5,209 report mentions
#2
Local guidance / SPD
66 report mentions
The hierarchy
National — NPPFpage pending
Strategic — London Planpage pending
Local — Hillingdon plan →
What wins here — approval rate by application type[2]

Bar = volume · figure = approval rate, across Hillingdon's substantive decisions.

Full / major planning
79%
Grounds for refusal at committee[3]

Why the planning committee refuses applications, from 10 refusals in the loaded minutes. Committee refusals are relatively few — most decisions are settled by officers.

Design Character
4
Transport Highway
3
Environmental
3
Heritage Conservation
2
Amenity
1
Overdevelopment
1
S106 Obligations
1
Policy Conflict
1
Policies cited on refusal — borough-wide[4]

The policies most often cited on Hillingdon refusal notices — the official refusal side of the citation record above.

NPPF276×
SI 12 of the Mayor's Publication London Plan (2020)1×
EM6 of the Local Plan1×
DMEI 9 of the Local Plan1×
DMCI 7 of the Hillingdon Local Plan1×
DF1 of the Draft London Plan1×
8.2 of the London Plan (2016)1×

706 high-confidence refusal notices parsed for Hillingdon.

Sources & method
  1. [1]Policy citations, per-policy officer counts and ward citation counts — parsed from 1,431 published Hillingdon officer reports (delegated and committee), joined to the canonical application record for wards. Approvals included — refusal notices alone only show the refusal side.
  2. [2]Approval rate by application type — Hillingdon's substantive decision record. · methodology
  3. [3]Committee refusal grounds and committee-cited policies — published Hillingdon planning-committee minutes. · committee record
  4. [4]Borough-wide refusal-notice policy citations — decision-notice parsing (high-confidence notices only).
Methodology is published in full so every number is traceable to its primary source.