Planning application · Ealing
260489FUL.
Rear Of 12 &14 Castlebar Park Ealing W5 1BX
Full / Other Planning at Rear Of 12 &14 Castlebar Park Ealing W5 1BX, received 9 Feb 2026 — refused on 21 Apr 2026 (delegated, John Robertson).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationEaling profile →
Refused
Outcome
21 Apr 2026
10 wks
Decision time
2 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
15
Documents
15 linked
0
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?
Construction of two dwellinghouse to the rear of 12 &14 Castlebar park with associated external alterations to the gardens; create new access from side (Joint Application)
Reference
260489FUL
Type
Full Application
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
W5 1BX
Ward
Council
Received
9 Feb 2026
Validated
24 Feb 2026
Target date
21 Apr 2026
Decision date
21 Apr 2026
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Refused
Council register
Reference
260489FUL
Type
Full Application
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
W5 1BX
Ward
Council
Received
9 Feb 2026
Validated
24 Feb 2026
Target date
21 Apr 2026
Decision date
21 Apr 2026
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 21 Apr 2026, delegated decision by John Robertson — 10 weeks from submission (2 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
9 Feb 2026
Application received
24 Feb 2026
Application validated
21 Apr 2026
Statutory target date
21 Apr 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · John Robertson
9 Feb 2026
Application received
24 Feb 2026
Application validated
21 Apr 2026
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
21 Apr 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · John Robertson
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed development, by reason of its backland siting, scale, layout,
orientation and proximity to site boundaries, would result in an overly dense and
contrived form of development that is out of keeping with the established pattern
of development in the area, which is characterised by street facing dwellings with
generous rear gardens. The proposed dwellings would not be subordinate in scale
to the surrounding frontage buildings and would fail to integrate appropriately
with the prevailing urban form.
Furthermore, due to the siting and massing of the proposed dwellings and the
limited separation distances to neighbouring properties, the development would
result in unacceptable impacts on the amenities of adjoining occupiers, including
loss of daylight, outlook and privacy, as well as overbearing effects to
neighbouring rear gardens.
The proposal would therefore fail to deliver a design led approach that optimises
site capacity in a manner responsive to local character and would not achieve a
high standard of residential amenity, contrary to Policies D3 and D6 of the
London Plan (2021), Policies 7.4 and 7B of the Ealing Development Management
DPD (2013), and Policy DAA of the Draft Ealing Local Plan (2024).
2
It has not been demonstrated on the submitted plans that there would be
adequate provision of outdoor amenity space for the new development contrary
to London Plan (2021) policy D6 and Ealing's Adopted DPD (2013) policy 7D.
3
The proposed development would involve the construction of new dwellings
on land with existing habitat value, with a combined building footprint exceeding
25 square metres. In accordance with Schedule 7A of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990 and Schedule 14 of the Environment Act 2021, development of
this nature is required to demonstrate the achievement of a minimum 10%
Biodiversity Net Gain.
No Biodiversity Net Gain assessment, metric, or biodiversity gain plan has been
submitted with the application to demonstrate that the statutory requirement can
be met, nor has it been shown that the proposal would qualify for any exemption.
As such, the Local Planning Authority cannot be satisfied that the development
would secure the required biodiversity net gain, and the proposal therefore fails
to comply with the statutory biodiversity requirements contrary to Schedule 14 of
the Environment Act 2021 and Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act
1990.
4
The submitted plans do not indicate any refuse storage provision and the
proposed houses would be over 40m from the street with no information provided
on how bins could be collected by refuse vehicles contrary to London Plan policy
SI7.
DEC_NOT Page 2 of 4
5
No provision for cycle storage is shown on the submitted plans contrary to
London Plan policy T5.
1
The proposed development, by reason of its backland siting, scale, layout,
orientation and proximity to site boundaries, would result in an overly dense and
contrived form of development that is out of keeping with the established pattern
of development in the area, which is characterised by street facing dwellings with
generous rear gardens. The proposed dwellings would not be subordinate in scale
to the surrounding frontage buildings and would fail to integrate appropriately
with the prevailing urban form.
Furthermore, due to the siting and massing of the proposed dwellings and the
limited separation distances to neighbouring properties, the development would
result in unacceptable impacts on the amenities of adjoining occupiers, including
loss of daylight, outlook and privacy, as well as overbearing effects to
neighbouring rear gardens.
The proposal would therefore fail to deliver a design led approach that optimises
site capacity in a manner responsive to local character and would not achieve a
high standard of residential amenity, contrary to Policies D3 and D6 of the
London Plan (2021), Policies 7.4 and 7B of the Ealing Development Management
DPD (2013), and Policy DAA of the Draft Ealing Local Plan (2024).
2
It has not been demonstrated on the submitted plans that there would be
adequate provision of outdoor amenity space for the new development contrary
to London Plan (2021) policy D6 and Ealing's Adopted DPD (2013) policy 7D.
3
The proposed development would involve the construction of new dwellings
on land with existing habitat value, with a combined building footprint exceeding
25 square metres. In accordance with Schedule 7A of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990 and Schedule 14 of the Environment Act 2021, development of
this nature is required to demonstrate the achievement of a minimum 10%
Biodiversity Net Gain.
No Biodiversity Net Gain assessment, metric, or biodiversity gain plan has been
submitted with the application to demonstrate that the statutory requirement can
be met, nor has it been shown that the proposal would qualify for any exemption.
As such, the Local Planning Authority cannot be satisfied that the development
would secure the required biodiversity net gain, and the proposal therefore fails
to comply with the statutory biodiversity requirements contrary to Schedule 14 of
the Environment Act 2021 and Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act
1990.
Show all 5 rows
4
The submitted plans do not indicate any refuse storage provision and the
proposed houses would be over 40m from the street with no information provided
on how bins could be collected by refuse vehicles contrary to London Plan policy
SI7.
DEC_NOT Page 2 of 4
5
No provision for cycle storage is shown on the submitted plans contrary to
London Plan policy T5.
Policies cited
D3D6
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.