Planning application · Ealing
261252HH.
1 Bedford Road Chiswick W4 1HU
Householder at 1 Bedford Road Chiswick W4 1HU, received 23 Mar 2026 — refused on 29 May 2026 (delegated, Alex Fuller).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationEaling profile →
Refused
Outcome
29 May 2026
10 wks
Decision time
2 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
18
Documents
18 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 detached garden outbuilding
Reference
261252HH
Type
Householder
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
W4 1HU
Ward
Council
Received
23 Mar 2026
Target date
18 May 2026
Decision date
29 May 2026
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Refused
Council register
Reference
261252HH
Type
Householder
Show all 15 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
W4 1HU
Ward
Council
Received
23 Mar 2026
Target date
18 May 2026
Decision date
29 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 29 May 2026, delegated decision by Alex Fuller — 10 weeks from submission (2 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
23 Mar 2026
Application received
18 May 2026
Statutory target date
29 May 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Alex Fuller
23 Mar 2026
Application received
18 May 2026
Statutory target date
29 May 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Alex Fuller
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed development, by reason of the siting of the outbuilding in a
prominent and insufficiently screened location within the front curtilage of a
Grade II Listed Building, and in close proximity to an established tree, would
result in an incongruous and visually intrusive form of development that would
fail to preserve the character and appearance of the Bedford Park Conservation
Area and would result in less than substantial harm (at the low end) to the
setting and significance of the designated heritage asset. No public benefits have
been identified to outweigh the harm created.
Furthermore, insufficient and inconsistent information has been submitted in
relation to boundary treatments and the relationship with existing trees,
preventing a robust assessment of the proposal's impacts. The identified harm
would amount to less than substantial harm to the significance of the designated
heritage assets, and in the absence of any public benefits, this harm is not
outweighed.
As such, the proposal would be contrary to NPPF Section 16 Paragraph 215
(2025), policies HC1, D3 and D4 of the London Plan (2021), policies 7.4, 7B and
7C of the Ealing Development Management DPD (2013), policy DAA of Ealing's
Draft New Local Plan (2024) (Reg. 22), and the relevant guidance in Ealing's
Generic Management Plan for Conservation Areas (2022) and the Bedford Park
Conservation Area Management Plan (2007).
1
The proposed development, by reason of the siting of the outbuilding in a
prominent and insufficiently screened location within the front curtilage of a
Grade II Listed Building, and in close proximity to an established tree, would
result in an incongruous and visually intrusive form of development that would
fail to preserve the character and appearance of the Bedford Park Conservation
Area and would result in less than substantial harm (at the low end) to the
setting and significance of the designated heritage asset. No public benefits have
been identified to outweigh the harm created.
Furthermore, insufficient and inconsistent information has been submitted in
relation to boundary treatments and the relationship with existing trees,
preventing a robust assessment of the proposal's impacts. The identified harm
would amount to less than substantial harm to the significance of the designated
heritage assets, and in the absence of any public benefits, this harm is not
outweighed.
As such, the proposal would be contrary to NPPF Section 16 Paragraph 215
(2025), policies HC1, D3 and D4 of the London Plan (2021), policies 7.4, 7B and
7C of the Ealing Development Management DPD (2013), policy DAA of Ealing's
Draft New Local Plan (2024) (Reg. 22), and the relevant guidance in Ealing's
Generic Management Plan for Conservation Areas (2022) and the Bedford Park
Conservation Area Management Plan (2007).
Policies cited
HC1D3D4NPPF para 215
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.