Planning application · Ealing
261188FUL.
6-16 Spring Bridge Mews Ealing W5 2AB
Full / Other Planning at 6-16 Spring Bridge Mews Ealing W5 2AB, received 18 Mar 2026 — refused on 26 May 2026 (delegated, Christopher Neelands).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationEaling profile →
Refused
Outcome
26 May 2026
10 wks
Decision time
2 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
11
Documents
11 linked
2
Objections
1 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 three-storey office building (Use Class E(g)(i)) (following demolition of existing two-storey office building)
Reference
261188FUL
Type
Full Application
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
W5 2AB
Ward
Council
Received
18 Mar 2026
Validated
31 Mar 2026
Target date
26 May 2026
Decision date
26 May 2026
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Refused
Council register
Reference
261188FUL
Type
Full Application
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
W5 2AB
Ward
Council
Received
18 Mar 2026
Validated
31 Mar 2026
Target date
26 May 2026
Decision date
26 May 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 26 May 2026, delegated decision by Christopher Neelands — 10 weeks from submission (2 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
18 Mar 2026
Application received
31 Mar 2026
Application validated
26 May 2026
Statutory target date
26 May 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Christopher Neelands
18 Mar 2026
Application received
31 Mar 2026
Application validated
26 May 2026
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
26 May 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Christopher Neelands
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed development would involve the demolition of an existing
Victorian building that makes a positive contribution to the character and
appearance of the Ealing Town Centre Conservation Area. The loss of this
building, combined with the scale, bulk, massing and design of the proposed
replacement building, would fail to preserve or enhance the character or
appearance of the Conservation Area and would result in less than substantial
harm to the significance of this designated heritage asset. The modest public
benefits arising from the proposed development are not considered sufficient to
outweigh this harm, which must be afforded great weight. The proposal is
therefore contrary to Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and
Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Paragraphs 212 and 215 of the NPPF (2024,
updated 2025), Policy HC1 of the London Plan (2021), and Policy 7C of the Ealing
Development Management DPD (2013).
2
The proposed development, by reason of its scale, bulk, massing and
siting, would result in an overbearing and enclosing form of development that
would exacerbate the poor quality pedestrian experience along the adjacent
public footpath and harm the character and quality of the public realm. The
proposal fails to respond positively to the local context, townscape and existing
pedestrian environment and does not deliver a high-quality design appropriate for
this sensitive town centre location. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies
D3, D4 and D8 of the London Plan (2021), Policies 7.4 and 7B of the Ealing
Development DPD (2013), Policy DAA of the Ealing Draft Local Plan (Regulation
22), and the design objectives of the NPPF (2024, updated 2025).
1
The proposed development would involve the demolition of an existing
Victorian building that makes a positive contribution to the character and
appearance of the Ealing Town Centre Conservation Area. The loss of this
building, combined with the scale, bulk, massing and design of the proposed
replacement building, would fail to preserve or enhance the character or
appearance of the Conservation Area and would result in less than substantial
harm to the significance of this designated heritage asset. The modest public
benefits arising from the proposed development are not considered sufficient to
outweigh this harm, which must be afforded great weight. The proposal is
therefore contrary to Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and
Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Paragraphs 212 and 215 of the NPPF (2024,
updated 2025), Policy HC1 of the London Plan (2021), and Policy 7C of the Ealing
Development Management DPD (2013).
2
The proposed development, by reason of its scale, bulk, massing and
siting, would result in an overbearing and enclosing form of development that
would exacerbate the poor quality pedestrian experience along the adjacent
public footpath and harm the character and quality of the public realm. The
proposal fails to respond positively to the local context, townscape and existing
pedestrian environment and does not deliver a high-quality design appropriate for
this sensitive town centre location. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies
D3, D4 and D8 of the London Plan (2021), Policies 7.4 and 7B of the Ealing
Development DPD (2013), Policy DAA of the Ealing Draft Local Plan (Regulation
22), and the design objectives of the NPPF (2024, updated 2025).
Policies cited
HC1NPPFD3D4D8
Public response
Measure
Count
Objections
2
In support
1
Total comments
3
Objections
2
In support
1
Total comments
3
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.