Planning application · Ealing
252834FUL.
11 Panhard Place Southall UB1 3JJ
Full / Other Planning at 11 Panhard Place Southall UB1 3JJ, received 23 Jul 2025 — refused on 7 Nov 2025 (delegated, Cathy Munonyedi).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationEaling profile →
Refused
Outcome
7 Nov 2025
15 wks
Decision time
7 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
11
Documents
11 linked
4
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?
Rear roof extension; change of use from single dwelling house (Use Class C3) to a five bedroom (six person) House in Multiple Occupation (Use Class C4) - Retrospective Application
Reference
252834FUL
Type
Full Application
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
UB1 3JJ
Ward
Council
Received
23 Jul 2025
Validated
5 Aug 2025
Target date
30 Sep 2025
Decision date
7 Nov 2025
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Refused
Council register
Reference
252834FUL
Type
Full Application
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
UB1 3JJ
Ward
Council
Received
23 Jul 2025
Validated
5 Aug 2025
Target date
30 Sep 2025
Decision date
7 Nov 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 7 Nov 2025, delegated decision by Cathy Munonyedi — 15 weeks from submission (7 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
23 Jul 2025
Application received
5 Aug 2025
Application validated
30 Sep 2025
Statutory target date
7 Nov 2025
Delegated decision: Refused · Cathy Munonyedi
23 Jul 2025
Application received
5 Aug 2025
Application validated
30 Sep 2025
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
7 Nov 2025
Delegated decision: Refused · Cathy Munonyedi
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The loft (Room 5) given its contrived layout and lack of adequate head
height under the 2.5m height for 75% floorspace minimum requirement would
not be fit for purpose, provide substandard quality of accommodation to the
detriment of the amenity of future occupiers. As such, the proposal would not
satisfy The London Plan (2021), policies D5 and D6 and Development
Management: Development Plan Document (2013) policy 7B, Ealing's Local Plan
Reg.22 policy DAA, National Planning Policy Framework 2025 - section 12,
Housing Design Standards (GLA) and Ealing's Housing in Multiple Occupation
Guidance
2
Due to the provision of kitchen sinks, worktops with the rooms, and in
particular their constrained locations within Rooms 4 and 5 the proposal is
considered to result in substandard self-contained accommodation to the
detriment of the amenities and living conditions of future occupiers of the
property. As such the proposal is contrary to the objectives of the National
Planning Policy Framework 2025 - section 12, policies D3, D6 and D14 of the
London Plan (2021), Housing Design Standards LPG, the Mayor's Housing SPG,
policies 7.4, 7B and 7D of Ealing's Adopted Development Management DPD
(2013) and Policy DAA of Ealing's Local Plan (Regulation 22).
3
The unauthorised use is likely to increased demand for on-street parking in
an already congested area contrary to policies T1 and T6 of the London Plan
(2021).
4
The as-built drawings submitted with the application are manifestly
inaccurate when compared to what is on site currently. The impact of the
development on the character of the area and host dwelling and the amenity of
neighbouring properties and future occupants cannot be accurately determined in
accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework 2025 - section 12,
Policies D3 and D6 of the London Plan (2021), Policies 7A, 7B and 7.4 of the
Ealing Development Management DPD (2013), Policy DAA of Ealing's Local Plan
(Reg.22) and Ealing's Housing Design Guidance (2022).
1
The loft (Room 5) given its contrived layout and lack of adequate head
height under the 2.5m height for 75% floorspace minimum requirement would
not be fit for purpose, provide substandard quality of accommodation to the
detriment of the amenity of future occupiers. As such, the proposal would not
satisfy The London Plan (2021), policies D5 and D6 and Development
Management: Development Plan Document (2013) policy 7B, Ealing's Local Plan
Reg.22 policy DAA, National Planning Policy Framework 2025 - section 12,
Housing Design Standards (GLA) and Ealing's Housing in Multiple Occupation
Guidance
2
Due to the provision of kitchen sinks, worktops with the rooms, and in
particular their constrained locations within Rooms 4 and 5 the proposal is
considered to result in substandard self-contained accommodation to the
detriment of the amenities and living conditions of future occupiers of the
property. As such the proposal is contrary to the objectives of the National
Planning Policy Framework 2025 - section 12, policies D3, D6 and D14 of the
London Plan (2021), Housing Design Standards LPG, the Mayor's Housing SPG,
policies 7.4, 7B and 7D of Ealing's Adopted Development Management DPD
(2013) and Policy DAA of Ealing's Local Plan (Regulation 22).
3
The unauthorised use is likely to increased demand for on-street parking in
an already congested area contrary to policies T1 and T6 of the London Plan
(2021).
Show all 4 rows
4
The as-built drawings submitted with the application are manifestly
inaccurate when compared to what is on site currently. The impact of the
development on the character of the area and host dwelling and the amenity of
neighbouring properties and future occupants cannot be accurately determined in
accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework 2025 - section 12,
Policies D3 and D6 of the London Plan (2021), Policies 7A, 7B and 7.4 of the
Ealing Development Management DPD (2013), Policy DAA of Ealing's Local Plan
(Reg.22) and Ealing's Housing Design Guidance (2022).
Policies cited
NPPFLondon Plan 12D3D6D14T1T6Ealing Development Management DPD 7.4
Public response
Measure
Count
Objections
4
In support
0
Total comments
4
Objections
4
In support
0
Total comments
4
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.