Planning application · Ealing
261523HH.
50 Bernard Avenue West Ealing W13 9TG
Householder at 50 Bernard Avenue West Ealing W13 9TG, received 9 Apr 2026 — refused on 29 May 2026 (delegated, Sophie Hennessy).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationEaling profile →
Refused
Outcome
29 May 2026
7 wks
Decision time
inside the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
8
Documents
8 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?
Single storey rear extension (following demolition of existing rear extension)
Reference
261523HH
Type
Householder
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
W13 9TG
Ward
Council
Received
9 Apr 2026
Target date
4 Jun 2026
Decision date
29 May 2026
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Refused
Council register
Reference
261523HH
Type
Householder
Show all 15 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
W13 9TG
Ward
Council
Received
9 Apr 2026
Target date
4 Jun 2026
Decision date
29 May 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 29 May 2026, delegated decision by Sophie Hennessy — 7 weeks from submission.
Timeline
Date
Event
9 Apr 2026
Application received
4 Jun 2026
Statutory target date
29 May 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Sophie Hennessy
9 Apr 2026
Application received
4 Jun 2026
Statutory target date
29 May 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Sophie Hennessy
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed single storey rear extension, by virtue of its excessive and
height would result in an overly dominant and visually intrusive form of
development. The proposal fails to adhere to the guidance set out in Ealing's
Housing Design Guidance (2022), which establishes a general maximum depth of
3.5m for rear extensions unless robust justification is provided. No sufficient
justification has been demonstrated in this case. Therefore the development
would fail to provide a high standard of amenity for neighbouring occupiers,
contrary to Policies D3 and D6 of the London Plan (2021) and Policy 7B of the
Ealing Development Management DPD (2013).
2
The scale and siting of the extension along the shared boundary with No.
52 Bernard Avenue would give rise to an unacceptable sense of enclosure and
loss of outlook to the neighbouring occupiers. Given that No. 52 does not benefit
from a comparable rear extension along the shared boundary, the full depth and
height of the proposal would be experienced, resulting in harmful impacts to
residential amenity.
3
The proposal would also result in unacceptable loss of light when assessed
against the 45-degree rule, leading to a material reduction in daylight and
sunlight to habitable room windows and garden.
4
The development fails to respect the established pattern of development
and scale of rear extensions within the immediate context, the proposal would
appear incongruous and harmful to the character and appearance of the area,
contrary to Policies D3 and D4 of the London Plan (2021) and Policy 7.4 of the
Ealing Development Management DPD (2013).
1
The proposed single storey rear extension, by virtue of its excessive and
height would result in an overly dominant and visually intrusive form of
development. The proposal fails to adhere to the guidance set out in Ealing's
Housing Design Guidance (2022), which establishes a general maximum depth of
3.5m for rear extensions unless robust justification is provided. No sufficient
justification has been demonstrated in this case. Therefore the development
would fail to provide a high standard of amenity for neighbouring occupiers,
contrary to Policies D3 and D6 of the London Plan (2021) and Policy 7B of the
Ealing Development Management DPD (2013).
2
The scale and siting of the extension along the shared boundary with No.
52 Bernard Avenue would give rise to an unacceptable sense of enclosure and
loss of outlook to the neighbouring occupiers. Given that No. 52 does not benefit
from a comparable rear extension along the shared boundary, the full depth and
height of the proposal would be experienced, resulting in harmful impacts to
residential amenity.
3
The proposal would also result in unacceptable loss of light when assessed
against the 45-degree rule, leading to a material reduction in daylight and
sunlight to habitable room windows and garden.
Show all 4 rows
4
The development fails to respect the established pattern of development
and scale of rear extensions within the immediate context, the proposal would
appear incongruous and harmful to the character and appearance of the area,
contrary to Policies D3 and D4 of the London Plan (2021) and Policy 7.4 of the
Ealing Development Management DPD (2013).
Policies cited
D3D6D4Ealing Development Management DPD 7.4
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.