Planning application · Ealing
242312FUL.
22 Jordan Road Perivale UB6 7BU
Full / Other Planning at 22 Jordan Road Perivale UB6 7BU, received 18 Jun 2024 — refused on 6 Aug 2024 (delegated, Patrick Franklin).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationEaling profile →
Refused
Outcome
6 Aug 2024
7 wks
Decision time
inside the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
7
Documents
7 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?
Construction of a two storey, with habitable loft space, semi-detached dwellinghouse; and provision of associated car parking space, refuse/cycle storage, and amenity space
Reference
242312FUL
Type
Full Application
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
UB6 7BU
Ward
Council
Received
18 Jun 2024
Target date
13 Aug 2024
Decision date
6 Aug 2024
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Refused
Council register
Reference
242312FUL
Type
Full Application
Show all 15 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
UB6 7BU
Ward
Council
Received
18 Jun 2024
Target date
13 Aug 2024
Decision date
6 Aug 2024
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Refused
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 6 Aug 2024, delegated decision by Patrick Franklin — 7 weeks from submission.
Timeline
Date
Event
18 Jun 2024
Application received
13 Aug 2024
Statutory target date
6 Aug 2024
Delegated decision: Refused · Patrick Franklin
18 Jun 2024
Application received
13 Aug 2024
Statutory target date
6 Aug 2024
Delegated decision: Refused · Patrick Franklin
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed dwelling, by reason of its dormer roof extension on the east
sloping roof of the dwellinghouse and by reason of the increased rear projection
of the dwellinghouse to 4m, would cumulatively:
a) fail to fit in with the existing context of the local area;
b) would fail to appear legible and would be a discordant and incongruous
addition when viewed from Lynmouth Road.
As such, the proposal would be a harmful addition, to the detriment of the
character, appearance and visual amenity of the surrounding area.
The applicant has not submitted any information to justify that the proposal is
appropriate to its context. The application also lacks information, such as a
section plan for each floor and a detailed second-floor plan and as such, the
proposal would not comply with the NPPF (2023), National Design Guide (2021),
Policies D3 and D4 of the London Plan (2021), Policies 7.4 and 7B of the Ealing
Development Management DPD (2013) and Policy DAA of the Ealing Local Plan
(Reg 19) (2024).
1
The proposed dwelling, by reason of its dormer roof extension on the east
sloping roof of the dwellinghouse and by reason of the increased rear projection
of the dwellinghouse to 4m, would cumulatively:
a) fail to fit in with the existing context of the local area;
b) would fail to appear legible and would be a discordant and incongruous
addition when viewed from Lynmouth Road.
As such, the proposal would be a harmful addition, to the detriment of the
character, appearance and visual amenity of the surrounding area.
The applicant has not submitted any information to justify that the proposal is
appropriate to its context. The application also lacks information, such as a
section plan for each floor and a detailed second-floor plan and as such, the
proposal would not comply with the NPPF (2023), National Design Guide (2021),
Policies D3 and D4 of the London Plan (2021), Policies 7.4 and 7B of the Ealing
Development Management DPD (2013) and Policy DAA of the Ealing Local Plan
(Reg 19) (2024).
Policies cited
D3D4NPPF
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.