Planning application · Ealing
250748FUL.
Full / Other Planning at 18 Corfton Road Ealing W5 2HT, received 25 Feb 2025 — refused on 15 Sep 2025 (delegated, Chris W.H. Tse).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationEaling profile →
Refused
Outcome
15 Sep 2025
29 wks
Decision time
21 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
16
Documents
16 linked
2
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?
Single storey building to rear of Amadeus House to provide staff offices, confidential space and sleep-in accommodation for overnight staff (use class C2)
Reference
250748FUL
Type
Full Application
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
W5 2HT
Ward
Council
Received
25 Feb 2025
Target date
22 Apr 2025
Decision date
15 Sep 2025
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Refused
Council register
Reference
250748FUL
Type
Full Application
Show all 15 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
W5 2HT
Ward
Council
Received
25 Feb 2025
Target date
22 Apr 2025
Decision date
15 Sep 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 Sep 2025, delegated decision by Chris W.H. Tse — 29 weeks from submission (21 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
25 Feb 2025
Application received
22 Apr 2025
Statutory target date
15 Sep 2025
Delegated decision: Refused · Chris W.H. Tse
25 Feb 2025
Application received
22 Apr 2025
Statutory target date
15 Sep 2025
Delegated decision: Refused · Chris W.H. Tse
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed development, by reason of its excessive size and
insubordinate scale, would represent an incongruous form of overdevelopment on
this site, being out of keeping with the character of the CA and the host building.
The proposed contemporary design would also be out of keeping with the design
and appearance of the host building. It would create less than substantial harms
to the CA and local heritage asset, in contrary to the policies of the National
Planning Policy Framework, the policies D3, D4 and HC1 of the London Plan
(2021), policies 7B, 7C and 7.4 of the Ealing Development Management DPD
(2013), Ealing Cricket Ground Conservation Area Management Plan (2008) and
Ealing Generic Conservation Area Management Plan (2023).
2
The proposed development, by reason of the reduction in size of outdoor
amenity space of the existing accommodation, would compromise the quality of
supported and specialised accommodation by reducing the amenity space, in
contrary to Policies S2 and H12 of the London Plan (2021).
1
The proposed development, by reason of its excessive size and
insubordinate scale, would represent an incongruous form of overdevelopment on
this site, being out of keeping with the character of the CA and the host building.
The proposed contemporary design would also be out of keeping with the design
and appearance of the host building. It would create less than substantial harms
to the CA and local heritage asset, in contrary to the policies of the National
Planning Policy Framework, the policies D3, D4 and HC1 of the London Plan
(2021), policies 7B, 7C and 7.4 of the Ealing Development Management DPD
(2013), Ealing Cricket Ground Conservation Area Management Plan (2008) and
Ealing Generic Conservation Area Management Plan (2023).
2
The proposed development, by reason of the reduction in size of outdoor
amenity space of the existing accommodation, would compromise the quality of
supported and specialised accommodation by reducing the amenity space, in
contrary to Policies S2 and H12 of the London Plan (2021).
Policies cited
D3D4HC1Ealing Development Management DPD 7.4NPPFS2H12
Public response
Measure
Count
Objections
2
In support
0
Total comments
3
Objections
2
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.