Two-storey front extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 3 July 2024 by A Price BSc MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 08 July 2024 Appeal Ref: APP/M1595/D/23/3331851 6 High Road, North Stifford, Grays, Thurrock RM16 5UE • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mrs Katie Wells against the decision of Thurrock Borough Council. • The application Ref is 23/00986/HHA. • The development proposed is a two-storey front extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a two-storey front extension at 6 High Road, North Stifford, Grays, Thurrock RM16 5UE in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 23/00986/HHA subject to the conditions below: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The external materials of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling. 3) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos: BLD-2277 007; BLD-2277 006; BLD-2277 005; BLD- 2277 004; BLD-2277 003. Preliminary Matters 2. I have used the Council’s description of development as this more accurately describes the proposed development. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area. Reasons 4. The appeal site comprises a semi-detached property set within a large garden plot. The dwelling is set back from the road behind a front forecourt. Surrounding properties range in scale, design, period and plot position. 5. The proposed development would be set forward of the front elevation of the existing dwelling. This is an atypical approach to extending traditional dwellings, as illustrated by the guidance in the Council’s Residential Alterations and Extensions Supplementary Planning Document (2017). However, as noted above, properties in the immediately surrounding area vary significantly. This Appeal Decision APP/M1595/D/23/3331851 2 includes properties with substantial single-storey extensions, and others with two-storey front projections. Whilst the projection of the proposed extension may be greater than some nearby examples, I am satisfied that it would, in this particular instance, appear appropriate in its context. 6. Overall, I conclude that the proposed development would be acceptable in respect of character and appearance and would accord with the relevant provisions of Policies CSTP22, CSTP23 and PMD2 of the Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development (2015). These policies, in summary, seek to ensure high quality design in development. This is in a similar vein to the National Planning Policy Framework insofar as design quality is concerned. Other Matters 7. The appeal site is located within the wider surroundings of Grade I and Grade II listed buildings, Coppid Hall, Churchview Cottages and the Church of St Mary the Virgin. Mindful of the statutory duty set out in s66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, I have had special regard to the desirability of preserving their settings. Given the location and extent of the proposed development, I consider that it would preserve the settings of these listed buildings and the contribution they make to their significance. I note the Council had no concerns in this regard either. Conclusion 8. For the above reasons, having had regard to the development plan as a whole and all other relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed, subject to conditions. A Price INSPECTOR