Planning application · Ealing
244088FUL.
68 King Street Southall UB2 4DD
Full / Other Planning at 68 King Street Southall UB2 4DD, received 30 Oct 2024 — refused on 19 Dec 2024 (delegated, Imogen Botterill-Downs).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationEaling profile →
Refused
Outcome
19 Dec 2024
7 wks
Decision time
inside the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
17
Documents
17 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?
Change of Use of existing multiple occupancy unit (HMO) over upper three floors into three self-contained flats on the first, second and loft levels; second floor rear extension, rear roof extension
Reference
244088FUL
Type
Full Application
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
UB2 4DD
Ward
Council
Received
30 Oct 2024
Validated
14 Nov 2024
Target date
9 Jan 2025
Decision date
19 Dec 2024
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Refused
Council register
Reference
244088FUL
Type
Full Application
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
UB2 4DD
Ward
Council
Received
30 Oct 2024
Validated
14 Nov 2024
Target date
9 Jan 2025
Decision date
19 Dec 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 19 Dec 2024, delegated decision by Imogen Botterill-Downs — 7 weeks from submission.
Timeline
Date
Event
30 Oct 2024
Application received
14 Nov 2024
Application validated
9 Jan 2025
Statutory target date
19 Dec 2024
Delegated decision: Refused · Imogen Botterill-Downs
30 Oct 2024
Application received
14 Nov 2024
Application validated
9 Jan 2025
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
19 Dec 2024
Delegated decision: Refused · Imogen Botterill-Downs
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
By way of their internal layout and lack of windows, the proposed
residential flats would experience insufficient natural light, ventilation and
outlook. The lack of windows and subsequent outlook would serve to the
detriment of the proposed flats and would cause inadequate and poor living
conditions for the future occupants.
As such, the proposed flat conversion would fail to comply with the objectives set
out in Policy D6 of the London Plan (2021)
2
By way of its excessive depth, the proposed second floor rear extension
would result in an adverse impact to the residential amenity of nos. 70 and 66
and would cause a sense of overshadowing and enclosure to the rear windows of
the first and second floors of no.66 and the second floor rear windows of no.70.
The proposed development would give rise to undue overshadowing and
increased sense of enclosure, it is expected to have detrimental impacts on the
level of amenity available to the occupants of the host and neighbouring
properties.
Therefore, given the above, it is considered that the proposal would be
unacceptable in terms of its impacts on neighbouring amenity and would fail to
comply with the objectives of the policies D3 and D6 of the London Plan (2021)
and policy 7B of the Ealing Development Management DPD (2013).
3
This proposal fails to provide sufficient refuse storage/collection solutions
as well as cycle storage for proposed three residential self-contained flats. The
lack of provision of refuse and cycle storage fails to provide a functional
residential environment.
As such, the refuse and cycle storage fails to comply with the minimum provision
standards as set out in Policies SI8 and T5 of the London Plan (2021).
1
By way of their internal layout and lack of windows, the proposed
residential flats would experience insufficient natural light, ventilation and
outlook. The lack of windows and subsequent outlook would serve to the
detriment of the proposed flats and would cause inadequate and poor living
conditions for the future occupants.
As such, the proposed flat conversion would fail to comply with the objectives set
out in Policy D6 of the London Plan (2021)
2
By way of its excessive depth, the proposed second floor rear extension
would result in an adverse impact to the residential amenity of nos. 70 and 66
and would cause a sense of overshadowing and enclosure to the rear windows of
the first and second floors of no.66 and the second floor rear windows of no.70.
The proposed development would give rise to undue overshadowing and
increased sense of enclosure, it is expected to have detrimental impacts on the
level of amenity available to the occupants of the host and neighbouring
properties.
Therefore, given the above, it is considered that the proposal would be
unacceptable in terms of its impacts on neighbouring amenity and would fail to
comply with the objectives of the policies D3 and D6 of the London Plan (2021)
and policy 7B of the Ealing Development Management DPD (2013).
3
This proposal fails to provide sufficient refuse storage/collection solutions
as well as cycle storage for proposed three residential self-contained flats. The
lack of provision of refuse and cycle storage fails to provide a functional
residential environment.
As such, the refuse and cycle storage fails to comply with the minimum provision
standards as set out in Policies SI8 and T5 of the London Plan (2021).
Policies cited
D6D3SI8T5
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.