Planning application · Ealing
260886HH.
16 Berrymede Road Chiswick W4 5JF
Householder at 16 Berrymede Road Chiswick W4 5JF, received 2 Mar 2026 — refused on 27 Apr 2026 (delegated, Eric Pang).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationEaling profile →
Refused
Outcome
27 Apr 2026
8 wks
Decision time
inside the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
6
Documents
6 linked
1
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 rear extension; roof extension to rear outrigger; and installation of new doors and windows to the rear elevation (following demolition of existing rear extension)
Reference
260886HH
Type
Householder
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
W4 5JF
Ward
Council
Received
2 Mar 2026
Target date
27 Apr 2026
Decision date
27 Apr 2026
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Refused
Council register
Reference
260886HH
Type
Householder
Show all 15 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
W4 5JF
Ward
Council
Received
2 Mar 2026
Target date
27 Apr 2026
Decision date
27 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 27 Apr 2026, delegated decision by Eric Pang — 8 weeks from submission.
Timeline
Date
Event
2 Mar 2026
Application received
27 Apr 2026
Statutory target date
27 Apr 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Eric Pang
2 Mar 2026
Application received
27 Apr 2026
Statutory target date
27 Apr 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Eric Pang
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed outrigger roof extension, by reason of its bulk, scale,
massing, design and siting, would not be a subordinate addition to the host
dwelling, the visual amenity of the street scene and character of the area. The
outrigger extension would project above the eaves of the host dwelling and would
not be in keeping with the pattern of development of the surrounding area. As
such, the proposal is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF),
policies 7.4 and 7B of the Ealing Development Management Development Plan
(2013) and policies D3 and D4 of the London Plan (2021), the Ealing Housing
Design Guidance (2022) and policy DAA of the draft Ealing Local Plan Regulation
22 (2024).
2
The proposed single storey rear extension and outrigger roof extension, by
reason of its depth and height along the shared boundary with No. 18, would
result in significant loss of outlook, natural light, and an increased sense of
enclosure, to the detriment of the amenity of occupants at Nos. 18. As such, the
proposal is contrary to policies D3 and D6 of the London Plan (2021), policy 7B of
the Ealing Development Management DPD (2013) and policy DAA of the draft
Ealing Local Plan Regulation 22 (2024).
1
The proposed outrigger roof extension, by reason of its bulk, scale,
massing, design and siting, would not be a subordinate addition to the host
dwelling, the visual amenity of the street scene and character of the area. The
outrigger extension would project above the eaves of the host dwelling and would
not be in keeping with the pattern of development of the surrounding area. As
such, the proposal is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF),
policies 7.4 and 7B of the Ealing Development Management Development Plan
(2013) and policies D3 and D4 of the London Plan (2021), the Ealing Housing
Design Guidance (2022) and policy DAA of the draft Ealing Local Plan Regulation
22 (2024).
2
The proposed single storey rear extension and outrigger roof extension, by
reason of its depth and height along the shared boundary with No. 18, would
result in significant loss of outlook, natural light, and an increased sense of
enclosure, to the detriment of the amenity of occupants at Nos. 18. As such, the
proposal is contrary to policies D3 and D6 of the London Plan (2021), policy 7B of
the Ealing Development Management DPD (2013) and policy DAA of the draft
Ealing Local Plan Regulation 22 (2024).
Policies cited
D3D4NPPFD6
Public response
Measure
Count
Objections
1
In support
0
Total comments
1
Objections
1
In support
0
Total comments
1
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.