Planning application · Ealing
244107FUL.
19 Ashridge Court Redcroft Road Southall UB1 3PA
Full / Other Planning at 19 Ashridge Court Redcroft Road Southall UB1 3PA, received 31 Oct 2024 — refused on 17 Jun 2025 (delegated, David Hung).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationEaling profile →
Refused
Outcome
17 Jun 2025
33 wks
Decision time
25 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
8
Documents
8 linked
0
Objections
0 in support
Yes
Appeal
Appeal Dismissed
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 four storey infill residential building to provide four x 2 bedroom flats (Following demolition of existing infill)
Reference
244107FUL
Type
Full Application
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
UB1 3PA
Ward
Council
Received
31 Oct 2024
Validated
30 Jan 2025
Target date
27 Mar 2025
Decision date
17 Jun 2025
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Refused
Council register
Reference
244107FUL
Type
Full Application
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
UB1 3PA
Ward
Council
Received
31 Oct 2024
Validated
30 Jan 2025
Target date
27 Mar 2025
Decision date
17 Jun 2025
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 Jun 2025, delegated decision by David Hung — 33 weeks from submission (25 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
31 Oct 2024
Application received
30 Jan 2025
Application validated
27 Mar 2025
Statutory target date
17 Jun 2025
Delegated decision: Refused · David Hung
Appeal
Appeal Dismissed · Appeal Dismissed
31 Oct 2024
Application received
30 Jan 2025
Application validated
27 Mar 2025
Statutory target date
Show all 5 rows
17 Jun 2025
Delegated decision: Refused · David Hung
Appeal
Appeal Dismissed · Appeal Dismissed
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed development, by reason of its development height would
create an overly dominant and incongruous form of development that would fail
to harmonise with the neighbouring blocks and would be out of keeping with the
surrounding development. As such, the proposal fails to accord with Policies D3,
D4 and HC1 of the London Plan (2021), Policies 7.4, 7.B and 7C of the Ealing
Development Management DPD (2013) and Policy DAA of Ealing's draft new Local
Plan (Regulation 22).
2
The proposed development, by reason of the inadequate cycle parking and
lack of refuse bin storage would result in poor living conditions for future
occupiers and would fail to remove barriers to cycling. As such, the proposal fails
to accord with Policy T5 of the London Plan (2021) and London Cycling Design
Standards (2014) and Policy SI 7 of the London Plan (2021).
3
The proposed vehicular crossover by reason of exceeding the 2.4m
standard width specification for a single crossover would interrupt the footway,
harming safety of the public. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policy T3 and T4
of the London Plan (2021), and The Vehicle Crossovers: Application Pack for
Residents (2021)
1
The proposed development, by reason of its development height would
create an overly dominant and incongruous form of development that would fail
to harmonise with the neighbouring blocks and would be out of keeping with the
surrounding development. As such, the proposal fails to accord with Policies D3,
D4 and HC1 of the London Plan (2021), Policies 7.4, 7.B and 7C of the Ealing
Development Management DPD (2013) and Policy DAA of Ealing's draft new Local
Plan (Regulation 22).
2
The proposed development, by reason of the inadequate cycle parking and
lack of refuse bin storage would result in poor living conditions for future
occupiers and would fail to remove barriers to cycling. As such, the proposal fails
to accord with Policy T5 of the London Plan (2021) and London Cycling Design
Standards (2014) and Policy SI 7 of the London Plan (2021).
3
The proposed vehicular crossover by reason of exceeding the 2.4m
standard width specification for a single crossover would interrupt the footway,
harming safety of the public. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policy T3 and T4
of the London Plan (2021), and The Vehicle Crossovers: Application Pack for
Residents (2021)
Policies cited
D3D4HC1T5SI7T3T4
Appeal
Appeal
Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
Outcome: Appeal Dismissed
Appeal Dismissed
Outcome: Appeal Dismissed
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.