Proposed development is single storey rear extension and front porch

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 6 July 2026 by P B Jarvis DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 23 July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6009903 153 London Road, Grays, Essex RM17 5YD • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Andrei Safarian against the decision of Thurrock Council. • The application Ref. is 26/00325/HHA. • The proposed development is single storey rear extension and front porch. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for single storey rear extension and front porch at 153 London Road, Thurrock, Grays, Essex RM17 5YD in accordance with the terms of application ref: 26/00325/HHA and subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall be begun within three years of the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: DHA/456/LOCATION PLAN, DHA/456/EXISTING BLOCK PLAN, DHA/456/PROPOSED BLOCK PLAN, DHA/457/01 (existing floor plans), DHA/457/02 (proposed floor plans), DHA/457/03 (existing elevations), DHA/457/04 (existing elevations), DHA/457/05 (proposed elevations), DHA/457/06 (proposed elevations). 3) The materials to be used in the external construction of the extensions hereby permitted shall match those used on the existing dwelling. Preliminary Matter 2. A current appeal relating to the property for a loft conversion and front skylights is dealt with under a separate decision letter1. Main Issue 3. The effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of the adjoining dwellings, nos. 151 and 155 London Road. Reasons 4. The appeal site comprises a modern terraced two-storey property set back behind a modest front garden area along the main London Road. There is an existing 1 PINS ref: 6009904 Appeal Decision 6009903 2 small porch canopy to the front, similar to others in the terrace. To the rear is a long narrow garden area accessed via double doors in the rear elevation. Both rear garden walls are marked by a brick wall of around 1.8m height. 5. The proposed rear extension would occupy the width of the rear garden area and extend to a depth of about 3.6 metres. At around 3 metres high it would be higher than the existing boundary walls, however, not by a significant amount. 6. The Council’s Residential Alterations and Extensions (2017) Supplementary Planning Document (RAE) requires that proposed extensions do not have an overbearing impact on adjacent properties or cause them to be excessively enclosed or overshadowed with specific requirements related to the 45 degree and 60 degree angles from windows of adjoining properties. 7. The Council contends that the proposal would exceed these guidelines but does not indicate by how much, nor has the appellant provided any further detail in this regard. Having regard to the RAE and in particular the guidance within section 4.2, it seems to me that there would be only a minor encroachment of these guidelines. In any event, it is noted that both adjoining properties have a window and patio door in the rear elevation and those furthest from the boundary, the patio doors at No. 151 and window at No. 155, are not affected by the above guidance. 8. The rear of the terrace faces south with a generally open aspect provided by the reasonably long rear gardens and rear access. Both adjoining properties would therefore enjoy reasonably good levels of sunlight albeit there may be some effects early morning in respect No. 155 and late afternoon in respect of No. 151. 9. The proposed extension would introduce a higher solid brick wall on the boundary but taking account of the height of the existing boundary wall and reasonably modest depth of the proposed extension, it is considered that that it would not unacceptably affect the outlook of those adjoining properties. 10. Overall, whilst there would be some impacts on terms of light and outlook, these would not be such as to unacceptably harm the living conditions of the occupiers of the adjoining properties. 11. With regard to the front porch, the Council has not raised any concerns and I agree that it would be acceptable given its modest size and sympathetic design and appearance. 12. Overall, it is concluded that the proposal would comply with Policy PMD1 of the Thurrock Local Development Framework Core Strategy and Policies for Management of Development (2015) (CSPMD) which seeks to prevent unacceptable impacts on the amenity of others. The proposal would also comply with the RAE. 13. It would also comply with the National Planning Policy Framework which, amongst other things, seeks good design that is sympathetic to local character and the surrounding built environment. Other Matters 14. A number of concerns have been raised by the owner of one of the neighbouring properties. Issues of loss of light and overshadowing are addressed above, but additional concerns relate to overdevelopment, party wall concerns, noise and Appeal Decision 6009903 3 disturbance during construction, parking and traffic, and drainage and infrastructure and impact on property value. In terms of scale the proposal would ensure that the majority of the garden area would be retained and the extension would not be disproportionate to the size of the existing dwelling, such that there would not be an ‘overdevelopment’ of the site. There is no evidence to conclude that an unacceptable level of noise or other disturbance would be created during construction nor is there evidence of any drainage constraints. Party wall matters are dealt with under other legislation and loss of property value is not a material planning matter. 15. Therefore, none of these factors alter my conclusions above. Conditions 16. In addition to the standard time condition, a condition to refer to the approved plans is necessary in the interests of clarity and proper planning. In addition, a condition to require materials to match the host dwelling is necessary in the interests of the visual amenity of the area and character of the street scene. Conclusion 17. The appeal is allowed. P B Jarvis INSPECTOR