Planning application · Ealing
242747FUL.
175 Ruislip Road Greenford UB6 9RY
Full / Other Planning at 175 Ruislip Road Greenford UB6 9RY, received 17 Jul 2024 — refused on 11 Sep 2024 (delegated, Yik Shing Tai).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationEaling profile →
Refused
Outcome
11 Sep 2024
8 wks
Decision time
inside the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
8
Documents
8 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?
Conversion of existing single family dwelling house into 2 self-contained flats and provision of associated cycle and refuse storage; single storey, part two storey, side and rear extension.
Reference
242747FUL
Type
Full Application
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
UB6 9RY
Ward
Council
Received
17 Jul 2024
Target date
11 Sep 2024
Decision date
11 Sep 2024
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Refused
Council register
Reference
242747FUL
Type
Full Application
Show all 15 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
UB6 9RY
Ward
Council
Received
17 Jul 2024
Target date
11 Sep 2024
Decision date
11 Sep 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 11 Sep 2024, delegated decision by Yik Shing Tai — 8 weeks from submission.
Timeline
Date
Event
17 Jul 2024
Application received
11 Sep 2024
Statutory target date
11 Sep 2024
Delegated decision: Refused · Yik Shing Tai
17 Jul 2024
Application received
11 Sep 2024
Statutory target date
11 Sep 2024
Delegated decision: Refused · Yik Shing Tai
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed development, by reason of Flat 1 not meeting the minimum
space standards, the bedroom areas for Flat 1 and Flat 2 also falling short of the
required space standards, along with the absence of private amenity space for
Flat 1, would result in substandard accommodation negatively affecting the living
conditions of future occupants. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policy D6 of
the London Plan (2021), Policy 3.5 of the Ealing Development Management DPD
(2013), and the Housing Design Standards LPG (2023).
2
The proposed two storey side/rear extension, by way of its design, would
create an incongruent addition to the host dwelling. The proposal would
accordingly result in harm to the character, appearance and visual amenity of the
surrounding area and the street scene. The application therefore fails to comply
with Policies D4 and D5 of the London Plan (2021), Policies 7.4 and 7B of the
Ealing Development Management Development Plan Document (2013) and NPPF
(2023).
1
The proposed development, by reason of Flat 1 not meeting the minimum
space standards, the bedroom areas for Flat 1 and Flat 2 also falling short of the
required space standards, along with the absence of private amenity space for
Flat 1, would result in substandard accommodation negatively affecting the living
conditions of future occupants. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policy D6 of
the London Plan (2021), Policy 3.5 of the Ealing Development Management DPD
(2013), and the Housing Design Standards LPG (2023).
2
The proposed two storey side/rear extension, by way of its design, would
create an incongruent addition to the host dwelling. The proposal would
accordingly result in harm to the character, appearance and visual amenity of the
surrounding area and the street scene. The application therefore fails to comply
with Policies D4 and D5 of the London Plan (2021), Policies 7.4 and 7B of the
Ealing Development Management Development Plan Document (2013) and NPPF
(2023).
Policies cited
D6Ealing Development Management DPD 3.5D4D5NPPF
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.