Single storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 20 November 2025 by B Pattison BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 08 December 2025 Appeal Ref: 6001051 2 Festival Gardens, Tolleshunt D'arcy, Essex CM9 8TX • 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 Ms Amy Peterson against the decision of Maldon District Council. • The application Ref is 25/00543/HOUSE. • The development proposed is single storey rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for single storey rear extension at 2 Festival Gardens, Tolleshunt D'arcy, Essex CM9 8TX in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 25/00543/HOUSE and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 2507-01; 2507-02; 2507-03; 2507-04; and 2507-05. 2) The external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be constructed in the materials shown on plan no 2507-05. Preliminary Matters 2. During my site visit, I observed that construction of the rear extension had commenced and was largely complete. However, the works were not finished, as the facing materials on the elevations had yet to be applied. I have determined the appeal on this basis. 3. I have used the Council’s description of development, as the description within the planning application form is lengthy and includes extraneous details. However, I have taken out the reference to ‘retrospective’, as this is not a development type. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the extension on the living conditions of the occupiers of 1 Festival Gardens, with particular reference to outlook. Reasons 5. The appeal property is a two storey, semi-detached house located within a residential area. It previously had a small single storey rear projection which extended approximately half way along the appeal property’s rear elevation. The new rear extension infills the space between the historic projection and the shared garden boundary with 1 Festival Gardens (No 1), the adjoining semi-detached property. Appeal Decision 6001051 2 6. No 1 has large windows on its rear elevation, which serve a habitable room and provide views, primarily directed to the rear of its garden, rather than towards the boundary with the appeal property. The garden is relatively large and open, and due to the limited development beyond, provides a good level of outlook for its occupiers. 7. The extension creates new built form close to the shared garden boundary with No 1, which is marked by a wood panel fence. I appreciate that the extension projects 6 metres in depth and the Council indicate that it is 0.9 metres taller than the boundary fence. However, given its single storey form, flat roof design with set- back roof lantern and relatively low eaves height, it would not be unduly overbearing. Furthermore, its position is orientated at an angle to the neighbouring windows which direct views to the rear of No 1’s garden. Overall, I am not persuaded that the extension harmfully affects outlook or significantly increases a sense of enclosure for the neighbouring occupiers. 8. For these reasons the proposal would accord with policies D1 and H4 of the Maldon District Local Development Plan (2017) which collectively require that extensions are of an appropriate scale and design, and that residents have a quality living environment as a result of positive design. Additionally, it would accord with paragraph 135 of the Framework which requires that developments create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. Conditions 9. I have assessed the proposed planning conditions in regard to the advice provided in the National Planning Policy Guidance. I have imposed an approved plans condition in the interests of certainty. Similarly, in the interests of the character and appearance of the area, the external materials must be those shown in the submitted drawings. As the construction has already commenced, I have not imposed a condition requiring the development hereby permitted to begin within three years from the date of the decision. Conclusion 10. For the above reasons, and having had regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the proposed development would accord with the development plan and the Framework. The appeal is therefore allowed. B Pattison INSPECTOR