Planning application · Ealing
242645HH.
162 Gunnersbury Lane Acton W3 9BB
Householder at 162 Gunnersbury Lane Acton W3 9BB, received 10 Jul 2024 — refused on 17 Dec 2024 (delegated, David Hung).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationEaling profile →
Refused
Outcome
17 Dec 2024
23 wks
Decision time
15 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
9
Documents
9 linked
3
Objections
0 in support
Yes
Appeal
Pending
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 to the roof profile, single storey/part two storey side/rear extension, external alterations, including new and replacement fenestration to the front, side and rear (Retrospective)
Reference
242645HH
Type
Householder
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
W3 9BB
Ward
Council
Received
10 Jul 2024
Target date
4 Sep 2024
Decision date
17 Dec 2024
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Refused
Council register
Reference
242645HH
Type
Householder
Show all 15 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
W3 9BB
Ward
Council
Received
10 Jul 2024
Target date
4 Sep 2024
Decision date
17 Dec 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 17 Dec 2024, delegated decision by David Hung — 23 weeks from submission (15 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
10 Jul 2024
Application received
4 Sep 2024
Statutory target date
17 Dec 2024
Delegated decision: Refused · David Hung
Appeal
Pending
10 Jul 2024
Application received
4 Sep 2024
Statutory target date
17 Dec 2024
Delegated decision: Refused · David Hung
Show all 4 rows
Appeal
Pending
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed alteration and increase in height at the rear outrigger is
considered to be incongruous and out of keeping with the pattern of
developments in the local area. The over-dominant height would fail to harmonise
with the original building on the site that would result in being out of keeping with
the character and general pattern of area. As such the proposal is considered to
run contrary to the policies D3 and D4 of the London Plan (2021), and policies 7B
and 7.4 of the Ealing Development Management DPD (2013).
2
The proposed addition of three full height Juliet balconies on the first and
second floor levels would result in detrimental impact in terms of loss of privacy
to neighbouring properties including the private gardens of 160 and 164
Gunnersbury Lane, and properties located further away from site along
Gunnersbury Lane, Lillian Avenue and Gunnersbury Gardens. It is considered that
the development would result in unacceptable impacts upon the amenities of
neighbouring properties and would therefore fails to comply with policies D3 and
D6 of the London Plan (2021), policy 7.4 and 7B of the Ealing Development
Management DPD and SPD4.
1
The proposed alteration and increase in height at the rear outrigger is
considered to be incongruous and out of keeping with the pattern of
developments in the local area. The over-dominant height would fail to harmonise
with the original building on the site that would result in being out of keeping with
the character and general pattern of area. As such the proposal is considered to
run contrary to the policies D3 and D4 of the London Plan (2021), and policies 7B
and 7.4 of the Ealing Development Management DPD (2013).
2
The proposed addition of three full height Juliet balconies on the first and
second floor levels would result in detrimental impact in terms of loss of privacy
to neighbouring properties including the private gardens of 160 and 164
Gunnersbury Lane, and properties located further away from site along
Gunnersbury Lane, Lillian Avenue and Gunnersbury Gardens. It is considered that
the development would result in unacceptable impacts upon the amenities of
neighbouring properties and would therefore fails to comply with policies D3 and
D6 of the London Plan (2021), policy 7.4 and 7B of the Ealing Development
Management DPD and SPD4.
Policies cited
D3D4Ealing Development Management DPD 7.4D6
Appeal
Appeal
Outcome
Pending
Outcome not yet recorded
Pending
Outcome not yet recorded
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.