Planning application · Ealing
224033HH.
38 Corringway Ealing London W5 3AA
Householder at 38 Corringway Ealing London W5 3AA, received 16 Sep 2022 — refused on 10 Nov 2022 (delegated, Christopher Neelands).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationEaling profile →
Refused
Outcome
10 Nov 2022
8 wks
Decision time
inside the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
20
Documents
20 linked
3
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?
First floor rear extension; rear roof extension, and installation of three roof lights to side roofslopes.
Reference
224033HH
Type
Householder
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
Ward
Council
Received
16 Sep 2022
Target date
10 Nov 2022
Decision date
10 Nov 2022
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Refused
Premises record
Council register
Reference
224033HH
Type
Householder
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
Ward
Council
Received
16 Sep 2022
Target date
10 Nov 2022
Decision date
10 Nov 2022
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Refused
Premises record
Council register
Documents
What was filed?
Document
Published
View
Show all 10 rows
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 10 Nov 2022, delegated decision by Christopher Neelands — 8 weeks from submission.
Timeline
Date
Event
16 Sep 2022
Application received
10 Nov 2022
Statutory target date
10 Nov 2022
Delegated decision: Refused · Christopher Neelands
16 Sep 2022
Application received
10 Nov 2022
Statutory target date
10 Nov 2022
Delegated decision: Refused · Christopher Neelands
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed development, by reason of its design, the full width first-floor
rear extension and the loss of the canted bay window and its hipped roof, would result
in a development which over-dominates and is unsympathetic to the dwelling's
original scale and character, to detriment of the appearance and character of the host
dwelling and the historic character of the Hanger Hill (Haymills) Conservation Area. As
such, the proposal is contrary to Paragraphs 199 and 202 of the NPPF (2021), Policies
D3, D4 and HC1 of the London Plan (2021), Policies 7.4, 7B and 7C of the Ealing
Development Management DPD (2013), The Hanger Hill (Haymills) Estate
Conservation Area Character Appraisal (2008) and The Hanger Hill (Haymills) Estate
Conservation Area Management Plan (2008).
2
The proposed development, by reason of the width and depth of the first-floor
rear extension, would result in an overbearing and unneighbourly form of
development, to the detriment of the visual amenities of occupants of No. 36
Corringway. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policy 7B of the Ealing Development
Management DPD (2013).
1
The proposed development, by reason of its design, the full width first-floor
rear extension and the loss of the canted bay window and its hipped roof, would result
in a development which over-dominates and is unsympathetic to the dwelling's
original scale and character, to detriment of the appearance and character of the host
dwelling and the historic character of the Hanger Hill (Haymills) Conservation Area. As
such, the proposal is contrary to Paragraphs 199 and 202 of the NPPF (2021), Policies
D3, D4 and HC1 of the London Plan (2021), Policies 7.4, 7B and 7C of the Ealing
Development Management DPD (2013), The Hanger Hill (Haymills) Estate
Conservation Area Character Appraisal (2008) and The Hanger Hill (Haymills) Estate
Conservation Area Management Plan (2008).
2
The proposed development, by reason of the width and depth of the first-floor
rear extension, would result in an overbearing and unneighbourly form of
development, to the detriment of the visual amenities of occupants of No. 36
Corringway. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policy 7B of the Ealing Development
Management DPD (2013).
Policies cited
D3D4HC1NPPF
Public response
Measure
Count
Objections
3
In support
0
Total comments
3
Objections
3
In support
0
Total comments
3
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.