Planning Atlas
Planning AtlasEalingDormers Wells ward240311FUL
Planning application · Ealing

240311FUL.

The Plough Public House 89 North Road Southall UB1 2JN

Full / Other Planning at The Plough Public House 89 North Road Southall UB1 2JN, received 23 Jan 2024 — refused on 18 Mar 2024 (delegated, Fernanda Calore).

EalingDormers WellsUB1 2JN240311FUL
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationEaling profile →
Refused
Outcome
18 Mar 2024
8 wks
Decision time
inside the 8-week target
Conditions
not captured
19
Documents
19 linked
0
Objections
0 in support
Yes
Appeal
Appeal Dismissed
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?

Construction of a two-storey building with part basement level to accommodate commercial/public house space ( Mixed Use Class E/Sui Generis) and 6 self-contained residential units (Use Class C3); installation of solar panels; and provision of associated amenity spaces, cycle and refuse storage (following demolition of the existing building)

Reference
240311FUL
Type
Full Application
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
UB1 2JN
Council
Received
23 Jan 2024
Target date
19 Mar 2024
Decision date
18 Mar 2024
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Refused
Reference
240311FUL
Type
Full Application
Show all 15 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
UB1 2JN
Council
Received
23 Jan 2024
Target date
19 Mar 2024
Decision date
18 Mar 2024
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Refused
Documents

What was filed?

Document
Published
View
APPEAL DECISION
17 Feb 2025
OFFICERS REPORT
18 Mar 2024
DECISION NOTICE
18 Mar 2024
NEIGHBOUR SITE NOTICE
6 Feb 2024
SITE NOTICE MAP
6 Feb 2024
ARCHAEOLOGICAL DESK-BASED ASSESSMENT
23 Jan 2024
SITE PLAN JAN 2024
23 Jan 2024
PROPOSED ELEVATIONS
23 Jan 2024
PARKING (NO ALTS).
23 Jan 2024
PROPOSED GROUND FLOOR JAN 2024
23 Jan 2024
APPEAL DECISION
17 Feb 2025
OFFICERS REPORT
18 Mar 2024
DECISION NOTICE
18 Mar 2024
Show all 10 rows
NEIGHBOUR SITE NOTICE
6 Feb 2024
SITE NOTICE MAP
6 Feb 2024
ARCHAEOLOGICAL DESK-BASED ASSESSMENT
23 Jan 2024
SITE PLAN JAN 2024
23 Jan 2024
PROPOSED ELEVATIONS
23 Jan 2024
PARKING (NO ALTS).
23 Jan 2024
PROPOSED GROUND FLOOR JAN 2024
23 Jan 2024

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 18 Mar 2024, delegated decision by Fernanda Calore — 8 weeks from submission.

Timeline

Date
Event
23 Jan 2024
Application received
19 Mar 2024
Statutory target date
18 Mar 2024
Delegated decision: Refused · Fernanda Calore
Appeal
Appeal Dismissed · Appeal Dismissed
23 Jan 2024
Application received
19 Mar 2024
Statutory target date
18 Mar 2024
Delegated decision: Refused · Fernanda Calore
Show all 4 rows
Appeal
Appeal Dismissed · Appeal Dismissed

Why it was refused

Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed demolition of a public house and change of use to mixed use residential and retail (Use classes C3 and E) would be contrary to Policy HC7 of the London Plan 2021, and the NPPF (section 93) which seeks to protect pub use and appearance where this contributes to the character, culture or community life of the area.
2
The proposed development does not demonstrate reasonable justification for the loss of the existing building and the public house. Furthermore no evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that there is not a reasonable prospect of re-use or refurbishment of the existing public house. Therefore, the proposal would fail to comply with the NPPF (2023), policy HC7 of the London Plan (2021), and policy 7.4 of the Ealing Development Management DPD (2013).
3
The proposed development by reason of its inappropriate design, bulk and mass would constitute in a bulky, incongruous and over dominant development harming the character and appearance of the area. The development would therefore fail to comply with the NPPF (2023), policy D4 of the London Plan (2021), and policy 7.4 of the Ealing Development Management DPD (2013).
4
The proposed development by reason of insufficient GIA for the flat 1, insufficient GIA for the K/L/D for flat 6 and insufficient width of the proposed bedrooms for the flats 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 would provide inadequate amenity and living conditions for future occupants. The development, therefore on balance, would result in substandard living conditions to the detriment of future occupiers. Therefore, the proposal is contrary to policies D3, D4 and D6 of the London Plan 2021, policies 7A and 7B of the Ealing DPD 2013 and the Housing Design Standards 2023.
5
The proposed development by reason of its massing, siting & incongruous design, would result in a harmful visual impact and sense of enclosure on the residential amenities of No. 01 Shackleton Road contrary to Policies D4 and D6 of the London Plan 2021, Policies 1.1 (e) (i) and 3.8 of the Ealing Core Strategy (2012), and policies 7B of the Ealing Development Management DPD (2013).
6
The proposed enlargement of the existing dropped kerbs, by virtue of the proximity with the closest junction, would be detrimental in terms of highway safety. As such, the proposal is contrary to policies T3 and T4 of the London Plan 2021.
1
The proposed demolition of a public house and change of use to mixed use residential and retail (Use classes C3 and E) would be contrary to Policy HC7 of the London Plan 2021, and the NPPF (section 93) which seeks to protect pub use and appearance where this contributes to the character, culture or community life of the area.
2
The proposed development does not demonstrate reasonable justification for the loss of the existing building and the public house. Furthermore no evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that there is not a reasonable prospect of re-use or refurbishment of the existing public house. Therefore, the proposal would fail to comply with the NPPF (2023), policy HC7 of the London Plan (2021), and policy 7.4 of the Ealing Development Management DPD (2013).
3
The proposed development by reason of its inappropriate design, bulk and mass would constitute in a bulky, incongruous and over dominant development harming the character and appearance of the area. The development would therefore fail to comply with the NPPF (2023), policy D4 of the London Plan (2021), and policy 7.4 of the Ealing Development Management DPD (2013).
Show all 6 rows
4
The proposed development by reason of insufficient GIA for the flat 1, insufficient GIA for the K/L/D for flat 6 and insufficient width of the proposed bedrooms for the flats 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 would provide inadequate amenity and living conditions for future occupants. The development, therefore on balance, would result in substandard living conditions to the detriment of future occupiers. Therefore, the proposal is contrary to policies D3, D4 and D6 of the London Plan 2021, policies 7A and 7B of the Ealing DPD 2013 and the Housing Design Standards 2023.
5
The proposed development by reason of its massing, siting & incongruous design, would result in a harmful visual impact and sense of enclosure on the residential amenities of No. 01 Shackleton Road contrary to Policies D4 and D6 of the London Plan 2021, Policies 1.1 (e) (i) and 3.8 of the Ealing Core Strategy (2012), and policies 7B of the Ealing Development Management DPD (2013).
6
The proposed enlargement of the existing dropped kerbs, by virtue of the proximity with the closest junction, would be detrimental in terms of highway safety. As such, the proposal is contrary to policies T3 and T4 of the London Plan 2021.
Policies cited
HC7NPPFEaling Development Management DPD 7.4D4D3D6Ealing Core Strategy 3.8T3T4

Appeal

Appeal
Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
Outcome: Appeal Dismissed
Appeal Dismissed
Outcome: Appeal Dismissed

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.