Development Intent
AtlasHillingdonPolicyDMHB11
Planning AtlasHillingdonDMHB11
PolicyPoliticalCommitteeOfficersAgents & developersViabilityMapAppeals
Hillingdon · Local Plan · Policy

DMHB11 — Design of New Development.

How Hillingdon actually applies DMHB11: who leans on it, where it bites hardest, and how often it's invoked. The policy text is the rule; this is the behaviour.

DMHB11 is a published Hillingdon planning policy. This page records where it appears in the council's published planning decisions.

Cited under: Hillingdon Local Plan (adopted)

Hillingdon · DMHB11
Where DMHB11 is quoted — by ward
Fewer ~0
More citations ~99
Showing
re-scopes the headline figures and the trend
1,025
times cited
in parsed decision notices
75%
appeal survival
69 dismissed · 23 allowed at appeal
44 of 46
officer reach
96% of officers recorded in this period
UXBRIDGE 2022
top hotspot ward
99 citations
What it means in practice

Not filled in yet. This will hold how officers actually argue DMHB11 case by case, classified from their decision reports — the classification pass hasn't run. Nothing is paraphrased in its place.

What the published record shows

DMHB11 appears most often in UXBRIDGE 2022, NORTHWOOD 2022, RUISLIP 2022. It appears across 44 of 46 officers recorded in this period. The map shows the pattern for the selected period.

Who cites it — case-officer spreadfrom parsed decision notices · click an officer
Who leans on this policy — and how often — is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Why it is cited — and what follows
100%
in approvals
1,022 citations
0%
in refusals
1 citations

This shows the decision reports in which DMHB11 appears. It does not yet claim that the policy caused those outcomes; 2 citations sit outside the approval/refusal split.

Reason · role · consequence

Not filled in yet — the classification pass over the citing passages hasn't run. When it has, this shows why DMHB11 was used, whether it supported approval or refusal, and what changed as a result. No conclusion is shown until that classification has been checked.

Why this policy is cited, and what follows, is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Does it hold up? — appeal performance
75% survival
69 dismissed · 23 allowed92 PINS appeal decisions cite DMHB11

From Planning Inspectorate decision letters that cite DMHB11. Dismissed = the council's refusal stood, the policy held; allowed = overturned. The tighter join — this borough's own refusals citing DMHB11 traced to their specific appeals — is still to come.

Related — follow the thread
Hillingdon
Back to the borough policy record
Open →
Committee record
What reaches members, and what they do with it
Open →
Case officers
Hillingdon's decision-makers
Open →
Citations, officer spread, ward and application-type counts parsed from published Hillingdon decision notices (high-confidence parses, approvals and refusals), joined to the canonical application record. One citation = one decision citing the policy. See the policy overview for every policy cited.

Atlas intelligence summarises patterns and observations from published planning records. Past decisions do not indicate how any future application will be determined. Every application is assessed on its own merits, having regard to the proposal, site, evidence and policies applying at the time. This information is provided for general information only and is not planning, legal, financial or professional advice.