Planning application · Ealing
261358HH.
162 Norwood Road Southall UB2 4JS
Householder at 162 Norwood Road Southall UB2 4JS, received 30 Mar 2026 — refused on 3 Jun 2026 (delegated, Shirley Ho).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationEaling profile →
Refused
Outcome
3 Jun 2026
9 wks
Decision time
1 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
9
Documents
9 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?
Formation of vehicle crossover; and installation of a dropped kerb
Reference
261358HH
Type
Householder
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
UB2 4JS
Ward
Council
Received
30 Mar 2026
Target date
25 May 2026
Decision date
3 Jun 2026
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Pending Consideration
Council register
Reference
261358HH
Type
Householder
Show all 15 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
UB2 4JS
Ward
Council
Received
30 Mar 2026
Target date
25 May 2026
Decision date
3 Jun 2026
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Pending Consideration
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 3 Jun 2026, delegated decision by Shirley Ho — 9 weeks from submission (1 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
30 Mar 2026
Application received
25 May 2026
Statutory target date
3 Jun 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Shirley Ho
30 Mar 2026
Application received
25 May 2026
Statutory target date
3 Jun 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Shirley Ho
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed vehicle crossover is located adjacent to a controlled
pedestrian crossing, where a pedestrian guardrail is currently installed along the
site frontage. This infrastructure plays a crucial role in directing pedestrians to
the designated crossing point and preventing unsafe crossing movements in the
vicinity of traffic signals. The application fails to identify the presence of the
guardrail or assess its function. Its removal to facilitate the dropped kerb cannot
be supported, as this would detrimentally impact pedestrian safety and the
operation of the controlled crossing. The proposal would therefore be contrary to
the Council's guidance, The Dropped Kerb: Application Pack for Residents (July
2021), and would fail to comply with Policies T2 and T4 of the London Plan (2021)
and policy 1.1 of the Ealing Local Development Framework - Adopted (Core)
Strategy (2012), which seek to ensure the safety and functionality of the highway
network for all users.
1
The proposed vehicle crossover is located adjacent to a controlled
pedestrian crossing, where a pedestrian guardrail is currently installed along the
site frontage. This infrastructure plays a crucial role in directing pedestrians to
the designated crossing point and preventing unsafe crossing movements in the
vicinity of traffic signals. The application fails to identify the presence of the
guardrail or assess its function. Its removal to facilitate the dropped kerb cannot
be supported, as this would detrimentally impact pedestrian safety and the
operation of the controlled crossing. The proposal would therefore be contrary to
the Council's guidance, The Dropped Kerb: Application Pack for Residents (July
2021), and would fail to comply with Policies T2 and T4 of the London Plan (2021)
and policy 1.1 of the Ealing Local Development Framework - Adopted (Core)
Strategy (2012), which seek to ensure the safety and functionality of the highway
network for all users.
Policies cited
T2T4Ealing Local Development Framework 1.1
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.