Removal of existing single storey extension and garage and replace with new side and rear single storey extension. Capping to parapet wall. 2 No. new roof lanterns installed to flat roof

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 19 January 2026 by T Bennett BA(Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 21 January 2026 Appeal Ref: 6001046 7 Seaview Road, Brightlingsea, Essex CO7 0PP • 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 Jonathan Smith against the decision of Tendring District Council. • The application Ref is 25/01028/FULHH. • The development proposed is removal of existing single storey extension and garage and replace with new side and rear single storey extension. Capping to parapet wall. 2 No. new roof lanterns installed to flat roof. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: • the character and appearance of the host property and area, and • the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers at No 9 Seaview Road with particular regard to outlook. Reasons Character and appearance 3. Properties on Seaview Road are varied in character and form, featuring a mix of single and two-storey detached and semi-detached dwellings in various finishes including render, brick and a combination of the two. The appeal property is a chalet-style bungalow similar to the two properties north of the appeal site. Several properties in the vicinity of the appeal site have undergone various extensions, which appear subordinate and well-proportioned relative to the host properties. 4. The proposed flat-roof, single-storey rear extension would replace an existing flat- roof rear extension. The existing extension is well-proportioned, appearing subordinate relative to the host property. The replacement would be of a greater height, width and depth. Whilst the extension would be rendered, contrasting with the brickwork on the host property, I do not find the use of render in itself inappropriate, given the use of render on other properties in the locality. However, by reason of its increased height, with part of the rear extension projecting above the slope of the host property’s roof and its close proximity to the rear upper-floor window, the extension would appear as a poorly designed, disproportionate and visually awkward addition. Appeal Decision 6001046 2 5. There would only be glimpsed views of the proposal’s roof from the streetscene due to position of the neighbouring property (No 9). In this regard, it would not have a harmfully adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area. However, limited visibility does not not negate the need for good design. The National Planning Policy Framework seeks development that is visually attractive as a result of good architecture, which the proposal fails to exhibit for the forementioned reasons. 6. In support of the appeal, the appellant has drawn my attention to a number of extensions at properties on Seaview Road that are visible from the street. However, from my observations, the examples at Nos 9, 25 and 27 relate well to their host properties and are not comparable to the appeal proposal. Although there may be some similarity with the example at No 67, I have no information as to the circumstances which led to its construction or whether it has secured planning permission, it does not persuade me that the proposal before me should be deemed acceptable. 7. For the reasons above, I conclude that the proposal would have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the host property. It would therefore conflict with Policy SP7 of the Tendring District Local Plan 2013-2033 and Beyond Section 1 (2021) (LP1) and Policy SPL3 of the Tendring District Local Plan 2013-2033 and Beyond Section 2 (2022) (LP2). Together, amongst other matters, these require new development to be well designed, meeting high standards of urban and architectural design that relates well to its site. Living conditions 8. No 9 has a large rear garden with a single-storey garage adjacent to the shared boundary with No 7, which extends beyond the rear elevation of No 9. The garage partially obscures views towards No 7 from the windows on the rear elevation at No 9. No 9 also has a conservatory but this is positioned on the opposite side of the property, adjacent to its boundary with No 11 Seaview Road. 9. Whilst the proposed development would extend above the shared boundary fence and would be visible from the rear of No 9, it would only extend a limited distance beyond the rear of its garage. 10. Given the presence of the existing garage, the setback of the proposed extension from the shared boundary, and the distance of the extension away from the rear habitable room windows at No 9, I find that the proposal would not significantly encroach upon the private amenity space of the occupiers of No 9, and the outlook from the rear habitable room windows, conservatory and private amenity space at No 9 would not be detrimentally harmed. 11. As such, I conclude that the proposal would not conflict with Policy SP7 of the LP1 and Policy SPL 3 of LP2 which together, require that the amenity of existing residents is protected and that development does not have a materially damaging impact on the amenities of occupiers of nearby properties. Conclusion 12. Although the proposal would not cause harm to the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers, it would have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the host property. Consequently, the proposal conflicts with the Appeal Decision 6001046 3 development plan as a whole and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. The appeal is therefore dismissed. T Bennett INSPECTOR