Planning application · Ealing
215320FUL.
Rear Of 118 And 120 Long Drive Acton London W3 7PH
Full / Other Planning at Rear Of 118 And 120 Long Drive Acton London W3 7PH, received 19 Aug 2021 — refused on 27 Jan 2023 (delegated, James Maloney).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationEaling profile →
Refused
Outcome
27 Jan 2023
75 wks
Decision time
67 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
6
Documents
6 linked
1
Objections
0 in support
No
Appeal
none recorded
Record from the Ealing planning register as captured; documents link to the council's own files. Nearby applications are context, not part of this application.
Application
What is it?
Retention of extensions to outbuildings (Joint Retrospective Application)
Reference
215320FUL
Type
Full Application
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
Ward
Council
Received
19 Aug 2021
Validated
23 Sep 2021
Target date
17 Nov 2021
Decision date
27 Jan 2023
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Refused
Premises record
Council register
Reference
215320FUL
Type
Full Application
Show all 17 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
Ward
Council
Received
19 Aug 2021
Validated
23 Sep 2021
Target date
17 Nov 2021
Decision date
27 Jan 2023
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Refused
Premises record
Council register
Documents
What was filed?
Document
Published
View
Documents open on the Ealing portal (the portal needs its documents tab opened first — the link handles that). View the application page ↗
Decision
What happened?
Refused on 27 Jan 2023, delegated decision by James Maloney — 75 weeks from submission (67 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
19 Aug 2021
Application received
23 Sep 2021
Application validated
17 Nov 2021
Statutory target date
27 Jan 2023
Delegated decision: Refused · James Maloney
19 Aug 2021
Application received
23 Sep 2021
Application validated
17 Nov 2021
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
27 Jan 2023
Delegated decision: Refused · James Maloney
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed outbuildings, by reason of their scale, excessive footprint, siting,
appearance and massing would constitute an overbearing and incongruous form of
development that would be inconsistent with the prevailing pattern of development,
resulting in harm to surrounding visual amenity and character and an undue enclosure
impact on no. 122 Long Drive, to the detriment of the residential amenity of that
property. Additionally, it has not been demonstrated that the use of the outbuildings
would be ancillary and/or incidental to the enjoyment of the respective dwellinghouses
and not a standalone use that is inappropriate for the predominantly residential
setting, or that the proposal has not resulted in detrimental impacts to trees within a
designated Site of Significance of Nature Conservation/Green Corridor. The proposal
would accordingly fail to comply with policies D3 and D4 of the London Plan (2021),
Policies LV7.4 and 7B of the Ealing Development Management DPD (2013), SPD4
(Residential Extensions) and the National Planning Policy Framework (2021).
1
The proposed outbuildings, by reason of their scale, excessive footprint, siting,
appearance and massing would constitute an overbearing and incongruous form of
development that would be inconsistent with the prevailing pattern of development,
resulting in harm to surrounding visual amenity and character and an undue enclosure
impact on no. 122 Long Drive, to the detriment of the residential amenity of that
property. Additionally, it has not been demonstrated that the use of the outbuildings
would be ancillary and/or incidental to the enjoyment of the respective dwellinghouses
and not a standalone use that is inappropriate for the predominantly residential
setting, or that the proposal has not resulted in detrimental impacts to trees within a
designated Site of Significance of Nature Conservation/Green Corridor. The proposal
would accordingly fail to comply with policies D3 and D4 of the London Plan (2021),
Policies LV7.4 and 7B of the Ealing Development Management DPD (2013), SPD4
(Residential Extensions) and the National Planning Policy Framework (2021).
Policies cited
D3D4NPPF
Public response
Measure
Count
Objections
1
In support
0
Total comments
2
Objections
1
In support
0
Total comments
2
People
Who is involved?
Name
Role
Applicant — the party who applied, not necessarily the owner
Agent · consultant profile
Case officer — delegated decision
Applicant — the party who applied, not necessarily the owner
Agent · consultant profile
Case officer — delegated decision
Place
What affects it?
Context around the site — not part of this application. Designations over the site: use the map's designations filter (conservation areas, listed buildings, Article 4, flood risk …). Decisions within 250 metres of the site are listed below — context, not this application.
Other applications within 250 metres (context — nearby, not this application)
No other geocoded decision is recorded within 250 metres.