Planning application · Ealing
260868FUL.
2 Islip Gardens Northolt UB5 5BX
Full / Other Planning at 2 Islip Gardens Northolt UB5 5BX, received 27 Feb 2026 — refused on 22 May 2026 (delegated, Imogen Botterill-Downs).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationEaling profile →
Refused
Outcome
22 May 2026
12 wks
Decision time
4 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
8
Documents
8 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?
Change of use of HMO (C4) to HMO (Sui Generis); with provision of cycle storage and bin storage
Reference
260868FUL
Type
Full Application
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
UB5 5BX
Council
Received
27 Feb 2026
Target date
24 Apr 2026
Decision date
22 May 2026
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Refused
Council register
Reference
260868FUL
Type
Full Application
Show all 15 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
UB5 5BX
Council
Received
27 Feb 2026
Target date
24 Apr 2026
Decision date
22 May 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 22 May 2026, delegated decision by Imogen Botterill-Downs — 12 weeks from submission (4 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
27 Feb 2026
Application received
24 Apr 2026
Statutory target date
22 May 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Imogen Botterill-Downs
27 Feb 2026
Application received
24 Apr 2026
Statutory target date
22 May 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Imogen Botterill-Downs
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed HMO, by reason of its layout, would result in substandard
quality of accommodation. The proposed layout would fail to provide acceptable
communal internal amenity space for socialisation, such as a living room. The
proposed kitchen/diner would be constrained in nature and would not provide
adequate space to accommodate full socialisation to overcome the lack of a
defined living area.
As such, the proposed HMO would fail to provide satisfactory living conditions for
future residents would be contrary to point 14.5 of Ealing Council's Standards for
Houses in Multiple Occupation (2025) and Policy D6 of the London Plan 2021.
2
The proposed HMO, by way of its layout, would result in substandard
quality of accommodation. The layout would fail to provide adequate length of
kitchen countertop space to accommodate 7 occupants.
As such, the proposed HMO would fail to provide satisfactory living conditions for
future residents would be contrary to point 2.18 of Ealing Council's Standards for
Houses in Multiple Occupation (2025) and Policy D6 of the London Plan 2021.
1
The proposed HMO, by reason of its layout, would result in substandard
quality of accommodation. The proposed layout would fail to provide acceptable
communal internal amenity space for socialisation, such as a living room. The
proposed kitchen/diner would be constrained in nature and would not provide
adequate space to accommodate full socialisation to overcome the lack of a
defined living area.
As such, the proposed HMO would fail to provide satisfactory living conditions for
future residents would be contrary to point 14.5 of Ealing Council's Standards for
Houses in Multiple Occupation (2025) and Policy D6 of the London Plan 2021.
2
The proposed HMO, by way of its layout, would result in substandard
quality of accommodation. The layout would fail to provide adequate length of
kitchen countertop space to accommodate 7 occupants.
As such, the proposed HMO would fail to provide satisfactory living conditions for
future residents would be contrary to point 2.18 of Ealing Council's Standards for
Houses in Multiple Occupation (2025) and Policy D6 of the London Plan 2021.
Policies cited
D6
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.