Single storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 3 February 2026 by C Housden BSc (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 13th February 2026 Appeal Ref: 6002580 153 London Road, Grays, Thurrock RM17 5YD • 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 Andrei Safarian against the decision of Thurrock Council. • The application ref is 25/01222/HHA. • The development proposed is single storey rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of 151 and 155 London Road, with particular regard to outlook, daylight and sunlight. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a two storey dwelling situated within a row of terraced properties set in long and narrow plots. The appeal property, along with both neighbouring properties 151 London Road (No 151) and 155 London Road (No 155), are set along a flat linear building line. No 155 has a glazed double door on its rear elevation situated adjacent to the boundary fencing, whilst No 151 has a window. 4. The development proposes a single storey rear extension which is set up to the shared boundaries with both neighbours and has a long rearward projection. Whilst the properties are divided by timber fencing, due to its height the single storey extension would nevertheless project a considerable amount above the boundary fencing. 5. Due to the significant depth of the proposal and its immediate proximity to the boundaries of the adjacent narrow garden areas, the development would create a prominent overbearing and enclosing effect on the rear windows and gardens of both Nos 151 and 155 which would significantly harm the outlook of the occupiers and restrict the daylight received by the properties. 6. In relation to sunlight, I have not been provided with any technical evidence on this matter from either party. Due to the positioning of the extension in relation to Nos 151 and 155 and the path of the sun, along with the height and depth of the proposal, it would cause an overshadowing effect on No 155 in the morning and on No 151 later in the afternoon. This would result in a loss of sunlight to these properties harming the occupiers living conditions. Appeal Decision 6002580 2 7. The development would therefore cause a significant adverse effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of both Nos 151 and 155. The appeal proposal would therefore conflict with Policy PMD1 of the Thurrock Core Strategy and Policies for Management of Development (2015). This policy, amongst other matters, seeks to ensure that development would not cause unacceptable effects on the amenities of neighbouring occupants. Other Matters 8. My attention has been drawn to examples of rear extensions within the wider terrace. I managed to observe many of these on my visit through the service road to the rear of the terrace. I have been provided with very limited details regarding these extensions, including relevant plans and measurements. However, I observed that these extensions appeared to be far shallower than the appeal scheme, so would not be directly comparable to the proposed development. In relation to No 149, the rear double storey element is set well away from the boundaries of the adjacent neighbours so is also not directly comparable to the appeal proposal. The presence of these examples does not persuade me that the appeal proposal is acceptable or otherwise justify the harm to the living conditions of Nos 151 and 155 which I have identified. Furthermore, each case should be assessed on its individual merits which I have done so in this case. 9. The appellant also sets out that mid-terrace properties can extend up to 6m through permitted development rights. However, the evidence before me shows that such rights have been removed from the property and a previous application for a certificate of lawfulness has been refused on this basis. In these circumstances, I cannot attribute any weight to such a potential development. 10. The appellant has raised the financial cost of submitting multiple applications. However, the PPG1 is clear that planning is concerned with land use in the public interest and therefore the private cost of planning submissions to the appellant is not a matter which would weigh in the planning balance. 11. The appellant has also raised concern regarding the Council’s handling of the applications, including it advising the appellant to submit a householder planning application for the development. However, this is a matter which lies outside the scope of my determination as it does not affect the planning merits of the proposal. 12. The development would improve the living conditions of the occupiers of 153 London Road by providing additional floor space at the property. However, this is a personal benefit of the scheme, and it therefore attracts limited weight in favour of the development. This would not outweigh the harm that I have identified. Conclusion 13. The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, for the reasons given above, the appeal should be dismissed. C Housden INSPECTOR 1 Paragraph: 008 Reference ID: 21b-008-20140306