Town Planner Pro
Free trial
Search appeal decisions

Planning appeal decision

Notice upheld4 September 20263365332

81 Ashness Gardens, Greenford, UB6 0RW

Planning appeal 3365332 at 81 Ashness Gardens, Greenford, UB6 0RW (London Borough of Ealing) was dismissed on 4 September 2026 by Inspector Ollerenshaw M, by written representations. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.

Authority
London Borough of Ealing
Appeal type
Enforcement Notice
Procedure
Written Representations
Development
residential · Change of use
Inspector
Ollerenshaw M

Main issues, as the Inspector framed them

  • the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area
  • whether the development provides satisfactory living conditions for the occupiers, with particular regard to internal space and layout, privacy, daylight, outlook, disturbance, ventilation and external amenity space
  • the effect of the development on the living conditions of neighbouring residents, with particular regard to noise and disturbance, and the appearance of the site
  • the effect of the development on on-street parking and congestion and whether it contributes to sustainable transport modes

What decided it

The over-intensive HMO use caused harm to the character of the area and to the living conditions of both occupiers and neighbours which was not outweighed by the benefits of the accommodation provided.

the benefits of the development are substantially outweighed by the adverse effects identified

What the Inspector cited

Development plan policies
Policy D3Policy D6Policy D14Policy 7.4Policy 7APolicy 7BPolicy 7DPolicy DAAPolicy T1Policy T5Policy T6
National Planning Policy Framework
Policy DP3Policy P3Policy S4
Judgments
Impey v SSE & Lake District SPB [1981] JPL 363; [1984] P&CR 157; Welwyn Hatfield BC v SSCLG & Beesley (2011) UKSC 15; Sage v SSETR & Maidstone BC [2003] UKHL 22; Murfitt v SSE & East Cambridgeshire DC [1980] JPL 598; Kestrel Hydro v SSCLG & Spelthorne Borough Council [2016] EWCA Civ 784; Caldwell & Timberstore Ltd v SSLUHC & Buckinghamshire Council [2024] EWCA Civ 467

How the Inspector dealt with each one is set out in the app, in order: the development plan, national policy, housing land supply, other considerations and the planning balance, beside the letter.

See how each was applied

The decision letter

Town Planner Pro holds this letter. The Appeals plan opens it and every other letter we hold, all of them searchable, with the main issues and what decided each case picked out. We do not show letters on the free site because they carry people’s names and addresses.

Appeals plan, £15 a month

With an account

What an account adds to this decision

An appeal decision in the app, with the main issues, policies and judgments cited picked out beside the letter
Every letter, there to read. We pick out the main issues, the policies and the judgments cited, so you can work through the letter faster.
Searching the full text of appeal decision letters in the app
Search inside every letter. By words or by meaning, filtered by authority, outcome, appeal type and procedure, with every locatable decision on the map and the Inspector named on each.
Start your free trial

More decisions in London Borough of Ealing

The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2026

  1. Dismissed27 October 20266013917
    94 Pitshanger Lane, Ealing, London, W5 1QX
  2. Dismissed22 October 20266011704
    62, Cornwall Avenue, Southall, UB1 2TG
  3. Quashed On Legal Grounds3 September 20263378189
    25 Scorton Avenue, Perivale, UB6 8LA
  4. Notice upheld26 August 20263376041
    Tiramisu Cafe, 12 St. Marys Road, London, W5 5ES
  5. Notice upheld26 August 20263358322
    95 Greatdown Road, London, W7 1JR

The main issues, what decided it, the planning balance and the policies and judgments listed as cited are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro and are our summary, not the Inspector’s words; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.

In the app this decision sits on the map beside every appeal around it, with its letter to read and the main issues, policies and judgments cited picked out.