Planning application · Ealing
242022HH.
286 Lady Margaret Road Southall UB1 2RX
Householder at 286 Lady Margaret Road Southall UB1 2RX, received 28 May 2024 — refused on 22 Jul 2024 (delegated, Christopher Neelands).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationEaling profile →
Refused
Outcome
22 Jul 2024
8 wks
Decision time
inside the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
15
Documents
15 linked
0
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?
Single storey side/rear (wrap around) extension; part first floor side/rear extension; rear roof extension; removal of oriel bay window and insertion of flush window
Reference
242022HH
Type
Householder
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
UB1 2RX
Ward
Council
Received
28 May 2024
Target date
23 Jul 2024
Decision date
22 Jul 2024
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Refused
Council register
Reference
242022HH
Type
Householder
Show all 15 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
UB1 2RX
Ward
Council
Received
28 May 2024
Target date
23 Jul 2024
Decision date
22 Jul 2024
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Refused
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 22 Jul 2024, delegated decision by Christopher Neelands — 8 weeks from submission.
Timeline
Date
Event
28 May 2024
Application received
23 Jul 2024
Statutory target date
22 Jul 2024
Delegated decision: Refused · Christopher Neelands
28 May 2024
Application received
23 Jul 2024
Statutory target date
22 Jul 2024
Delegated decision: Refused · Christopher Neelands
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed development, by reason of the scale, bulk, and massing of
the single storey side/rear (wrap around) extension and part first floor side/rear
extension, along with the loss of the oriel bay window, would result in an
incongruous development that over-dominates and is unsympathetic to the
property's original scale and character, to the detriment of the character and
appearance of the host property and the local area. As such, the proposal fails to
accord with Policies D3 and D4 of the London Plan (2021), Policies 7.4 and 7.B of
the Ealing Development Management DPD (2013), Policy DAA of Ealing's draft
new Local Plan (Regulation 19) and Ealing's Housing Design Guidance.
2
The proposed development, by reason of the loss of street tree (T1)
without appropriate justification, would harm the visual amenity of the street,
urban greening and local ecology. As such, the proposal fails to accord with
Policies G5 and G7 of the London Plan (2021) and Policy 5.10 of the Ealing
Development Management DPD (2013).
1
The proposed development, by reason of the scale, bulk, and massing of
the single storey side/rear (wrap around) extension and part first floor side/rear
extension, along with the loss of the oriel bay window, would result in an
incongruous development that over-dominates and is unsympathetic to the
property's original scale and character, to the detriment of the character and
appearance of the host property and the local area. As such, the proposal fails to
accord with Policies D3 and D4 of the London Plan (2021), Policies 7.4 and 7.B of
the Ealing Development Management DPD (2013), Policy DAA of Ealing's draft
new Local Plan (Regulation 19) and Ealing's Housing Design Guidance.
2
The proposed development, by reason of the loss of street tree (T1)
without appropriate justification, would harm the visual amenity of the street,
urban greening and local ecology. As such, the proposal fails to accord with
Policies G5 and G7 of the London Plan (2021) and Policy 5.10 of the Ealing
Development Management DPD (2013).
Policies cited
D3D4G5G7Ealing Development Management DPD 5.10
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.