Two-storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 9 July 2026 By Terrence Kemmann-Lane JP DipTP FRTPI MCMI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 17 July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6009662 4 Stonehall Drive, Little Clacton, Clacton-on-Sea, CO16 9RD • 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 Baker and Miss Strutt against the decision of Tendring District Council. • The application Ref is 26/00251/FULHH. • The development proposed is a two-storey rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a two-storey rear extension at 4 Stonehall Drive, Little Clacton, Clacton-on-Sea, CO16 9RD in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 26/00251/FULHH, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The materials used on the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used on the existing house. Main Issue 2. The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed 2-storey rear extension on the living conditions of the occupants of the neighbouring dwelling to the west, No.3 Stonehall Drive. Reasons 3. The appeal property, No. 4 Stonehall Drive, is located on the north side of a private road, situated within the southern section of Little Clacton. It is one of a pair of semi-detached 3 bed houses dating from the immediate post-war period. A similar pair of properties are located alongside – Nos.1 & 2 Stonehall Drive. Other properties in the street are of varying design and age, although many have been extended to the rear. Little Clacton is recognised as being a key settlement village within the council’s adopted Local Plan. 4. Number 3 Stonehall Drive has a ground floor extension with a low mono-pitched roof very close to the boundary with the appeal property that extends some 3m to the rear. The proposed rear extension would have no material effect on the ground floor of this house. The first-floor part of the proposal is on the east side of the pair, on the north-facing elevation. Due to this orientation, I consider that there would be no deleterious effect in terms of daylight or outlook on the nearest window to the Appeal Decision 6009662 2 proposed extension, which I am told is a box room. Bearing in mind the double gable form of roof proposed, it would not be overbearing and oppressive on No.3, from within that house or garden area. For these reasons the appeal will be allowed. Conditions 5. The statutory condition that provides a time limit on the start of development must be imposed. The council has not suggested any conditions in the event that the appeal is upheld. However, I consider that a condition requiring that the external materials used in the development shall match those used on the existing house is necessary to ensure that the development has a satisfactory appearance. Terrence Kemmann-Lane INSPECTOR