- Decision
- dismissed, 25 August 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: John Morrison (on recommendation of Appeal Planning Officer E Street)
- Authority
- Ealing (London)
- Appeal reference
- 6010063
- Application reference
- 251413FUL
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Retrospective conversion of house to two flats with extensions and outbuilding
- Homes
- 1
- Site context
- inside settlement
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- S4, P3
- Development plan policies
- London Plan 2021 D6, Ealing DM DPD 2013 3.5
- Main issues
- living conditions of occupiers; character and appearance
Summary
A retrospective subdivision of an Ealing end-terrace into two flats was dismissed because the second bedroom's size, and so NDSS compliance, was ambiguous. Under S4 the limited benefit of one extra unit was substantially outweighed by living-conditions harm given significant weight (DL ¶15-16).
What made the difference
Conflicting room measurements and no enforceable way to fix which room is the double. The same APO and inspector pairing as PINS-6009929 treated efficient land use as "expected" rather than a benefit (DL ¶15).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| P3 | fail | significant | ambiguity over "Bed 2" size (9.41 vs 12.2 sq m) - NDSS compliance of 2-bed 4-person flat not shown; not conditionable (DL 5-10, 16) |
| S4 | fail | one extra unit limited weight - substantially outweighed (DL 15-16) |
Key facts
- Extensions found acceptable in character terms; privacy fixable by 1.8 m fence condition
- No re-consultation on the new Framework; refers to "section 12" (old NPPF numbering)
Sources
This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.