Planning application · Ealing
250406FUL.
10 Spring Bridge Mews Ealing W5 2AB
Full / Other Planning at 10 Spring Bridge Mews Ealing W5 2AB, received 29 Jan 2025 — refused on 15 Jul 2025 (delegated, Christopher Neelands).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationEaling profile →
Refused
Outcome
15 Jul 2025
24 wks
Decision time
16 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
36
Documents
36 linked
1
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 new four storey office building with cycle store and photovoltaic panels (Demolition of existing studio offices)
Reference
250406FUL
Type
Full Application
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
W5 2AB
Ward
Council
Received
29 Jan 2025
Validated
10 Feb 2025
Target date
7 Apr 2025
Decision date
15 Jul 2025
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Refused
Council register
Reference
250406FUL
Type
Full Application
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
W5 2AB
Ward
Council
Received
29 Jan 2025
Validated
10 Feb 2025
Target date
7 Apr 2025
Decision date
15 Jul 2025
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 15 Jul 2025, delegated decision by Christopher Neelands — 24 weeks from submission (16 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
29 Jan 2025
Application received
10 Feb 2025
Application validated
7 Apr 2025
Statutory target date
15 Jul 2025
Delegated decision: Refused · Christopher Neelands
Appeal
Appeal Dismissed · Appeal Dismissed
29 Jan 2025
Application received
10 Feb 2025
Application validated
7 Apr 2025
Statutory target date
Show all 5 rows
15 Jul 2025
Delegated decision: Refused · Christopher Neelands
Appeal
Appeal Dismissed · Appeal Dismissed
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed northern wing of the proposed four storey building by reason
of its increase in height (2 storeys), combined with its increase in width (4m
increase) would further enclose the public footpath, creating an unwelcoming
public realm. As such, the proposal would be contrary to Policy D8 (F and G) of
the London Plan (2021), 7.4 and 7B of the Ealing Development Management DPD
(2013) and Policy DAA of the Ealing Draft Local Plan (Regulation 22).
2
The proposal would result in the loss of a Victorian-era building within the
Ealing Town Centre Conservation Area. The proposed building by reason of its
contemporary design would fail to preserve or enhance the character of
Springbridge Mews and the Ealing Town Centre Conservation Area. The proposed
development by virtue of its design, it would result in less than substantial harm
(at the low end) without providing on balance sufficient public benefit. This would
be contrary to Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation
Areas) Act 1990, Paragraph 212 of the NPPF 2025, Policy HC1 of the London Plan
(2021), 7C of the Ealing Development Management DPD (2013) and the NPPF
(2024).
1
The proposed northern wing of the proposed four storey building by reason
of its increase in height (2 storeys), combined with its increase in width (4m
increase) would further enclose the public footpath, creating an unwelcoming
public realm. As such, the proposal would be contrary to Policy D8 (F and G) of
the London Plan (2021), 7.4 and 7B of the Ealing Development Management DPD
(2013) and Policy DAA of the Ealing Draft Local Plan (Regulation 22).
2
The proposal would result in the loss of a Victorian-era building within the
Ealing Town Centre Conservation Area. The proposed building by reason of its
contemporary design would fail to preserve or enhance the character of
Springbridge Mews and the Ealing Town Centre Conservation Area. The proposed
development by virtue of its design, it would result in less than substantial harm
(at the low end) without providing on balance sufficient public benefit. This would
be contrary to Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation
Areas) Act 1990, Paragraph 212 of the NPPF 2025, Policy HC1 of the London Plan
(2021), 7C of the Ealing Development Management DPD (2013) and the NPPF
(2024).
Policies cited
HC1NPPF
Appeal
Appeal
Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
Outcome: Appeal Dismissed
Appeal Dismissed
Outcome: Appeal Dismissed
Public response
Measure
Count
Objections
1
In support
0
Total comments
2
Objections
1
In support
0
Total comments
2
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.