Single storey rear and side extension, two storey side extension and dormers to front and rear roof slopes

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 23 February 2026 by John Pearce MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 23rd March 2026 Appeal Ref: 6001554 2 Kendal Close, Hullbridge, Essex SS5 6DW • 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 James Yates against the decision of Rochford District Council. • The application Ref is 25/00111/FFUL. • The development proposed is single storey rear and side extension, two storey side extension and dormers to front and rear roof slopes. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for single storey rear and side extension, two storey side extension and dormers to front and rear roof slopes at 2 Kendal Close, Hullbridge, Essex SS5 6DW in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/00111/FUL, 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 drawings titled ‘location and block plan’ and ‘existing and proposed plans for a loft conversion and single storey extensions’ Revision 1. 3) The external materials of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling. Preliminary Matter 2. The description of development in the heading above and the formal decision has been taken from the planning application form. Neither of the main parties has provided written confirmation that a revised description of development as set out in the decision notice has been agreed. Accordingly, I have used the description given on the original application form. I do not consider that this has prejudiced any of the parties and I have proceeded with the appeal on this basis. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 4. The appeal site comprises a detached dwelling forming a plot to the corner of Ferry Road and Kendal Close. The existing single-storey dwelling is set back from the Ferry Road frontage and is set in from the side boundaries. Development in Appeal Decision 6001554 2 the area typically consists of a mix of chalet-style and single-storey dwellings set back from the front boundaries. 5. There is a prevalence of dormer windows of varying sizes within the roof slopes of dwellings in the area. Within the front roof slopes in the area, dormer windows typically have a flat roof finish set below the ridge and are positioned centrally with verges on either side. Large dormer additions with a limited height difference to the ridges are evident close to the site, including at No 1 Kendal Close. 6. The scheme includes flat roof dormer additions within the front and rear roof slopes. The flat roof finish would reflect the prevailing form of dormer windows in the area. In addition, the dormers would be set away from the eaves and below the ridge of the dwelling. Whilst large, the dormers would occupy a central position within the roof slopes and would be set away from the sides of the roof. The size of the verges to either side of the dormers, as well the distance from the eaves, would accord with the advice set out in paragraph 8.2 of the Supplementary Planning Document 2 Housing Design 2007. 7. The proposal includes a two-storey side extension to one end of the dwelling and a single-storey extension to the other end that would project beyond the rear elevation. The two-storey side extension would elongate the dwelling, but would retain the existing form of the dwelling. Moreover, the extension would be set in from the side boundary and would retain a considerable separation from the rear elevations of dwellings fronting Lower Road. 8. I conclude that the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the area. The development therefore accords with Policy DM1 of the Development Management Plan 2014, which requires amongst other things that proposals have a positive relationship with existing and nearby buildings. Other Matters 9. The first floor windows within the rear elevation would be fitted with obscure glazing and would prevent harmful overlooking towards the neighbouring dwelling at No 4 Kendal Close (No 4) to the rear of the site. While the first floor window serving one of the bedrooms would not be fitted with obscure glazing, the position of the window would only provide views towards the front of the No 4. Accordingly, the proposal would not lead to a loss of privacy for occupants of the neighbouring dwelling. 10. The two-storey extension would enlarge the dwelling to the side, but would be set in from the side and rear boundaries. Due to the orientation, the limited scale of the development and separation from the neighbouring dwellings, the proposal would not result in a loss of light and would not harm the outlook of the occupants of neighbouring properties. 11. Concerns have been raised that the proposal would reduce the value of neighbouring properties. Nevertheless, the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) notes that the courts in general have taken the view that planning is concerned with land use in the public interest, so that the protection of purely private interests such as the impact of a development on the value of a neighbouring property or loss of private rights to light could not be material considerations. Appeal Decision 6001554 3 12. Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) introduced a statutory framework for biodiversity net gain, and it applies to all planning applications for non-major development submitted on or after 2 April 2024. Under the statutory framework, subject to some exceptions, every grant of planning permission is deemed to have been granted subject to the Biodiversity Gain Condition (BGC), which requires that at least a 10% increase in biodiversity value is met. However, the PPG states that the BGC does not apply to householder development, such as the appeal proposal. Conditions 13. In addition to the standard time limit condition, I have imposed a condition requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans. This is in the interests of certainty. 14. In order to protect the character and appearance of the host property and the area, it is necessary to impose a condition requiring the external materials used in the construction of the development to match those of the existing building. 15. The Council have suggested a condition to be included requiring that obscure glazing is installed within some of the first floor windows in the rear elevation. However, the plan includes annotations detailing that some of the windows would be fitted with obscure glazing. An additional condition to this effect would therefore be unnecessary. Conclusion 16. For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed. John Pearce INSPECTOR