Proposed part single and part two storey side extension, single storey rear extension with associated internal alterations

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 17 December 2025 by Fiona Bradley BRP (NZ) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 13 January 2026 Appeal Ref: 6001045 112 Victoria Road, Stanford Le Hope SS17 0HY • 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 Mr Rahul Patel against the decision of the Thurrock Borough Council. • The application ref is 25/00705/HHA. • The development proposed is described as “proposed part single and part two storey side extension, single storey rear extension with associated internal alterations”. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the proposed part single and part two storey side extension, single storey rear extension with associated internal alterations in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/00705/HHA, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing refs: Location Plan, 112VR(01) Revision A, 112VR(02) Revision A, 112VR(03) Revision A, 112VR(04) Revision A, 112VR(05) Revision A Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on pedestrian and highway safety with particular regard to on-street car parking provision. Reasons 3. Victoria Road is a two-lane carriageway with on-street parking provided on both sides arranged in an alternating pattern along its length. Victoria Road and surrounding roads are within a parking permit area with restrictions on weekdays between 10am and 4pm. Some properties on the street benefit from on-site parking while others would be reliant on the on-street parking provision. Pavements are provided on both sides of the road. 4. The site is on the eastern side of Victoria Road and comprises a two-storey semi- detached dwelling. There is a garage to the rear of the site. To the side is hardstanding providing access to the side door of the dwelling and to the rear of the site. 5. The Council’s Core Strategy and Policies for Management of Development (CSPMD) policy PMD8 refers to parking standards which seek a minimum of 2 off- Appeal Decision 6001045 2 street parking spaces for a 3-bed dwelling, recommending an additional space be provided for 4 beds or more. The Council contends that the proposal would result in the loss of off-street parking provision within the site, thereby resulting in a shortfall of three parking spaces for the extended dwelling. This is based on the Council’s view that the site includes a garage and parking for at least three cars with access to the highway. Interested parties also refer to on-site parking provision. 6. The kerb to the front of the site is low however it does not form an official dropped kerb. On that basis, I conclude that the site does not currently benefit from any lawful on-site parking provision. Therefore, I do not concur with the Council that the proposal would result in the loss of on-site car parking spaces. While the proposed extended dwelling would require the provision of three parking spaces, the development itself would result in an increase of only one additional parking space. 7. During the time of my site visit, around midday on a weekday, Victoria Gardens was fairly heavily parked, although there was some on-street capacity within the vicinity of the site for parking. I would anticipate parking demand to be higher outside the hours controlled through the permit parking. The presence of on-street parking and the consequent narrowing of the usable highway acts as a traffic calming measure. Furthermore, there would continue to be passing places along the carriageway and I saw that it was sufficiently wide for larger vehicles to pass the vehicles parked on-street. As such, there would be little impact on the flow of traffic in the area from an additional vehicle being parked on the street as a result of the development. 8. When visiting the site, I saw that it is within a short walk from a number of facilities and services including the parade of shops on King Street, the Stanford Le Hope train station, and bus stops on adjacent roads. There were numerous pedestrians using the pavements on both sides of Victoria Road. I could see no apparent pedestrian safety issues which a modest increase in on-street car parking would exacerbate or cause. 9. I have not been provided with evidence of any pedestrian or highway safety issues in the area. Furthermore, as the proposal would create demand for only one additional parking space, I am satisfied this would have a negligible effect on pedestrian and highway safety. An under provision of on-site parking is therefore justified in the particular circumstances of this case. 10. For these reasons, the effect of the proposal on pedestrian and highway safety with particular regard to on-street car parking provision would be acceptable. There would be some conflict with CSPMD policy PMD8 which seeks to ensure appropriate provision of car parking for all development however I have given limited weight to this conflict for the reasons given. The proposal would not conflict with CSPMD policy PMD9 insofar as it seeks to ensure developments do not impact adversely on capacity and safety. 11. The Council refers to CSPMD policy PMD2 which is a design and layout policy requiring proposals to respond to the sensitivity of the site and its surroundings and is not relevant to the determination of this appeal. The Council also refers to the Residential Alterations and Extensions Supplementary Planning Document Appeal Decision 6001045 3 (SPD). There is no reference to car parking provision or standards for extensions in the SPD therefore it is not relevant to the determination of this appeal. Other Matters 12. There are concerns that the proposed extensions would have adverse impacts on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties with regard to overlooking. The Council has no concerns in this regard and, taking into account the positions of the openings and the distances between properties, there are no compelling reasons to reach different findings to the Council. 13. Other concerns raised by third parties including the smell resulting from residents smoking, noise disturbance and skips on the site are not material planning considerations. Conditions 14. In the interests of certainty and clarity I have imposed the standard conditions relating to the commencement of development and requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans. The Council did not suggest any conditions, and no other conditions are necessary. Conclusion 15. The proposal accords with the development plan, when read as a whole. Material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. 16. For the reasons given above, the appeal should be allowed. Fiona Bradley INSPECTOR