Planning application · Ealing
261394HH.
71 Medway Drive Perivale UB6 8LW
Householder at 71 Medway Drive Perivale UB6 8LW, received 31 Mar 2026 — refused on 10 Jun 2026 (delegated, Shirley Ho).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationEaling profile →
Refused
Outcome
10 Jun 2026
10 wks
Decision time
2 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
10
Documents
10 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?
First floor rear extension; alterations to front elevation involving modifications and insertion of door; and internal and associated alterations
Reference
261394HH
Type
Householder
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
UB6 8LW
Ward
Council
Received
31 Mar 2026
Target date
26 May 2026
Decision date
10 Jun 2026
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Pending Consideration
Council register
Reference
261394HH
Type
Householder
Show all 15 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
UB6 8LW
Ward
Council
Received
31 Mar 2026
Target date
26 May 2026
Decision date
10 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 10 Jun 2026, delegated decision by Shirley Ho — 10 weeks from submission (2 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
31 Mar 2026
Application received
26 May 2026
Statutory target date
10 Jun 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Shirley Ho
31 Mar 2026
Application received
26 May 2026
Statutory target date
10 Jun 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Shirley Ho
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed first-floor rear extension, by reason of its full-width siting,
scale, bulk, and design, would result in an incongruous and overly dominant form
of development that fails to appear subordinate to the host dwelling. The
extension would disrupt the established pattern and uniformity of rear elevations
within the terrace, where full-width first-floor rear extensions are not a prevailing
characteristic. As such, the proposal would erode the coherent spatial rhythm and
proportions of the terrace and appear visually intrusive within the surrounding
context.
The development would therefore fail to respect the character and appearance of
the host dwelling and the wider area, contrary to Policies D3 and D4 of the
London Plan (2021), which require development to respond positively to local
context and achieve a high standard of design.
2
The proposed first-floor rear extension, by reason of its full-width siting,
scale, bulk and proximity to the shared boundaries with adjoining properties at
Nos. 69 and 73 Medway Drive, would result in a visually intrusive and
overbearing form of development. The extension would introduce a continuous
and enclosing built form at upper floor level, reducing the sense of openness
between properties and giving rise to an increased sense of enclosure when
viewed from neighbouring rear-facing windows and private amenity spaces.
As a result, the proposal would lead to an unacceptable loss of outlook and would
be detrimental to the living conditions of adjoining occupiers. The development is
therefore contrary to Policy D6 of the London Plan (2021), which seeks to ensure
that development does not result in unacceptable harm to the amenity of
surrounding properties.
1
The proposed first-floor rear extension, by reason of its full-width siting,
scale, bulk, and design, would result in an incongruous and overly dominant form
of development that fails to appear subordinate to the host dwelling. The
extension would disrupt the established pattern and uniformity of rear elevations
within the terrace, where full-width first-floor rear extensions are not a prevailing
characteristic. As such, the proposal would erode the coherent spatial rhythm and
proportions of the terrace and appear visually intrusive within the surrounding
context.
The development would therefore fail to respect the character and appearance of
the host dwelling and the wider area, contrary to Policies D3 and D4 of the
London Plan (2021), which require development to respond positively to local
context and achieve a high standard of design.
2
The proposed first-floor rear extension, by reason of its full-width siting,
scale, bulk and proximity to the shared boundaries with adjoining properties at
Nos. 69 and 73 Medway Drive, would result in a visually intrusive and
overbearing form of development. The extension would introduce a continuous
and enclosing built form at upper floor level, reducing the sense of openness
between properties and giving rise to an increased sense of enclosure when
viewed from neighbouring rear-facing windows and private amenity spaces.
As a result, the proposal would lead to an unacceptable loss of outlook and would
be detrimental to the living conditions of adjoining occupiers. The development is
therefore contrary to Policy D6 of the London Plan (2021), which seeks to ensure
that development does not result in unacceptable harm to the amenity of
surrounding properties.
Policies cited
D3D4D6
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.