Planning application · Ealing
254590FUL.
Full / Other Planning at 8 Hale Gardens Acton W3 9SQ, received 5 Dec 2025 — refused on 1 Jun 2026 (delegated, Cheryl Yeung).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationEaling profile →
Refused
Outcome
1 Jun 2026
25 wks
Decision time
17 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
13
Documents
13 linked
42
Objections
2 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 single dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) into an 8 bedroom 10 person large House in Multiple Occupation (Use Class Sui Generis)
Reference
254590FUL
Type
Full Application
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
W3 9SQ
Ward
Council
Received
5 Dec 2025
Target date
30 Jan 2026
Decision date
1 Jun 2026
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Refused
Council register
Reference
254590FUL
Type
Full Application
Show all 15 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
W3 9SQ
Ward
Council
Received
5 Dec 2025
Target date
30 Jan 2026
Decision date
1 Jun 2026
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 1 Jun 2026, delegated decision by Cheryl Yeung — 25 weeks from submission (17 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
5 Dec 2025
Application received
30 Jan 2026
Statutory target date
1 Jun 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Cheryl Yeung
5 Dec 2025
Application received
30 Jan 2026
Statutory target date
1 Jun 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Cheryl Yeung
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed development, by reason of its proposed level of occupancy,
would erode the established residential character of the area, undermine the
community cohesion and would give rise to a materially greater degree of noise
and disturbance for neighbouring residents. The proposal would therefore
represent an over-intensified use of the property, contrary to the NPPF (2025),
policies D3 and D6 of the London Plan (2021) and policy 7B of the Ealing
Development Management DPD (2013).
2
The proposed development, by reasons of insufficient minimum combined
floor area of living, dining and kitchen spaces, lack of communal area and an
undersized Bedroom 4, would fail to provide satisfactory living conditions for
future residents and would therefore be contrary to policy D6 of the London Plan
(2021), policy 7B of the Ealing Development Management Development Plan
Document (2013), the NPPF (2025), Ealing's HMO Standards (2025) and Ealing's
Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs): practical guidance for applicants (2026).
1
The proposed development, by reason of its proposed level of occupancy,
would erode the established residential character of the area, undermine the
community cohesion and would give rise to a materially greater degree of noise
and disturbance for neighbouring residents. The proposal would therefore
represent an over-intensified use of the property, contrary to the NPPF (2025),
policies D3 and D6 of the London Plan (2021) and policy 7B of the Ealing
Development Management DPD (2013).
2
The proposed development, by reasons of insufficient minimum combined
floor area of living, dining and kitchen spaces, lack of communal area and an
undersized Bedroom 4, would fail to provide satisfactory living conditions for
future residents and would therefore be contrary to policy D6 of the London Plan
(2021), policy 7B of the Ealing Development Management Development Plan
Document (2013), the NPPF (2025), Ealing's HMO Standards (2025) and Ealing's
Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs): practical guidance for applicants (2026).
Policies cited
D3D6NPPF
Public response
Measure
Count
Objections
42
In support
2
Total comments
44
Objections
42
In support
2
Total comments
44
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.