Planning application · Ealing
240297HH.
83 Farndale Crescent Greenford UB6 9LW
Householder at 83 Farndale Crescent Greenford UB6 9LW, received 23 Jan 2024 — refused on 4 Apr 2024 (delegated, Pinderpal Rathor).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationEaling profile →
Refused
Outcome
4 Apr 2024
10 wks
Decision time
2 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
8
Documents
8 linked
0
Objections
0 in support
Yes
Appeal
Appeal Allowed with Conditions
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?
Alteration of roof from hip to gable end and roof extension to rear/side (main) roof slope; part rear roof extension to rear outrigger roof slope and installation of one roof lights to front roof slope
Reference
240297HH
Type
Householder
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
Council
Received
23 Jan 2024
Target date
19 Mar 2024
Decision date
4 Apr 2024
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Refused
Premises record
Council register
Reference
240297HH
Type
Householder
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
Council
Received
23 Jan 2024
Target date
19 Mar 2024
Decision date
4 Apr 2024
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 4 Apr 2024, delegated decision by Pinderpal Rathor — 10 weeks from submission (2 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
23 Jan 2024
Application received
19 Mar 2024
Statutory target date
4 Apr 2024
Delegated decision: Refused · Pinderpal Rathor
Appeal
Appeal decided · Appeal Allowed with Conditions
23 Jan 2024
Application received
19 Mar 2024
Statutory target date
4 Apr 2024
Delegated decision: Refused · Pinderpal Rathor
Show all 4 rows
Appeal
Appeal decided · Appeal Allowed with Conditions
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed roof extension, by reason of its scale, mass, bulk, design and
siting, would result in a development which over-dominates and is unsympathetic to
the dwelling's original scale and character, to detriment of the character and
appearance of the host dwelling and local area. As such, the proposal is contrary to
Policies D3 and D4 of the London Plan (2021), Policies 7.4 and 7B of the Ealing
Development Management DPD (2013), Policy DAA of Ealing's draft new Local Plan
(Regulation 19), SPD4 Residential Extensions and Ealing's Housing Design Guidance.
2
The proposed roof extension, by reason of its scale, mass, bulk, design and
siting, would result in an overbearing and unneighbourly form of development, that
would create an increased sense of enclosure and harm the visual amenities of No. 81
Ferndale Crescent. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policy 7B of the Ealing
Development Management DPD (2013) and Policy DAA of Ealing's draft new Local Plan
(Regulation 19).
1
The proposed roof extension, by reason of its scale, mass, bulk, design and
siting, would result in a development which over-dominates and is unsympathetic to
the dwelling's original scale and character, to detriment of the character and
appearance of the host dwelling and local area. As such, the proposal is contrary to
Policies D3 and D4 of the London Plan (2021), Policies 7.4 and 7B of the Ealing
Development Management DPD (2013), Policy DAA of Ealing's draft new Local Plan
(Regulation 19), SPD4 Residential Extensions and Ealing's Housing Design Guidance.
2
The proposed roof extension, by reason of its scale, mass, bulk, design and
siting, would result in an overbearing and unneighbourly form of development, that
would create an increased sense of enclosure and harm the visual amenities of No. 81
Ferndale Crescent. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policy 7B of the Ealing
Development Management DPD (2013) and Policy DAA of Ealing's draft new Local Plan
(Regulation 19).
Policies cited
D3D4
Appeal
Appeal
Outcome
Appeal decided
Outcome: Appeal Allowed with Conditions
Appeal decided
Outcome: Appeal Allowed with Conditions
Public response
Measure
Count
Objections
0
In support
0
Total comments
0
Objections
0
In support
0
Total comments
0
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.