Proposed development is to demolish existing porch and construct single storey side 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: 6009936 102 Central Avenue, Canvey Island, Essex SS8 9QP • 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 Joe Edgar against the decision of Castle Point Borough Council. • The application Ref. is 26/0151/FUL. • The proposed development is to demolish existing porch and construct single storey side extension and front porch. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted to demolish existing porch and construct single storey side extension and front porch in accordance with the terms of application ref: 26/0151/FUL 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: 1:1250 location plan, drawing nos. B01 (existing block plan), A01 (existing plans & elevations), B02 (proposed block plan) and A02 Rev. 2 (proposed plans and elevations). 3) The materials to be used in the external construction of the extensions hereby permitted shall match those used on the existing dwelling. Main Issues 2. The main issues are the effect on • the character and appearance of the host dwelling and wider area. • The living conditions of the occupiers of the host property in respect of levels of natural light and outlook from the bedroom and external amenity space. Reasons 3. The appeal site comprises a modern single storey bungalow. It is one of four very similar bungalows set back a uniform distance from Central Avenue with generally open front garden areas. No. 102 is the northernmost property in this row and occupies a corner plot at the junction of Central Avenue with Ruskoi Road. No. 96 at the southern end of the row of four is somewhat different with a front garden enclosed by fencing and a high hedge with the fencing extending around the southern boundary which fronts Oulton Avenue. The properties within the wider Appeal Decision 6009936 2 area are more varied in appearance with a mixture of bungalows and two-storey dwellings with open front garden areas enclosed by low hedges, fences or walls. 4. The Council’s Residential Design Guidance SPD (2013) (RDG) whilst adopted some time ago is nevertheless a material consideration to which some weight can be given. It sets out a number of detailed ‘policies’ with the prefix RDG. Character and appearance 5. The proposed side extension would result in a larger dwelling than currently exists on the site but its overall appearance would be similar with a new higher pitched roof and gable front facing the main road, similar to the existing dwelling. Windows to the front would remain with a small front porch added to the northern end with a mono pitch roof matching that of the main roof. The windows proposed in the new side elevation would be similar to those that currently exist and would match the appearance of those used throughout the existing bungalow. 6. The proposed extension would result in most of the side garden being ‘lost’ but a small strip of around 1.2 m width would remain. Whilst this would mean that the dwelling would be closer to the Ruskoi Road frontage, a reasonable set back would remain in keeping with the wider street scene. The space to the front and rear of the plot would not be affected, apart from the small front porch, and overall, the scale of the extended dwelling would remain proportionate. The space around the dwelling would remain consistent with the prevailing character of the area and would not result in overdevelopment, consistent with RDG2. 7. The Council suggests that the arrangement of windows in the proposed flank elevation would be incoherent with the new window sizes being inconsistent. However, the existing side windows are not of consistent depth and whilst a reduced width window would be provided, this would be a similar arrangement to those on the front elevation. 8. Furthermore, there would be little discernible impact in the street scene view due to the existing close boarded fence albeit the windows themselves would provide some articulation as recommended by RDG4 which seeks to ensure that plots ‘turn the corner’ by providing active frontages. The loss of render elements and introduction of wholly brick faced elevations to the front and side would not be incongruous within the street scene nor detract from the appearance of the host dwelling provided matching materials are used and this could be secured through a suitable condition. Otherwise, the design and appearance of the proposed side extension would reflect that of the host dwelling in accordance with RDG8 which seeks to ensure that the overall architectural approach of the dwelling is consistent. 9. The proposed porch would be forward of the uniform building line created by the four bungalows in the row, but it would be a relatively modest element of lower height and much smaller width than the main front elevation. As such it would not appear unduly prominent or otherwise detract from the street scene within which it would be seen as a subservient addition. Furthermore, I note that within the wider street scene, there are a number of examples of similar forward sited porches so it would not be an incongruous addition in that sense. Overall, this would satisfy RDG3 whereby it would not disrupt the overall pattern of development. 10. The porch would have the front door within the side elevation with a blank front elevation presented to the street scene. This would introduce a less balanced front Appeal Decision 6009936 3 elevation. However, as noted above, there is already some imbalance in respect of window position and sizes and the proposal would not change this significantly with the larger window occupying a more logical central position. 11. The front door would not face towards the Central Avenue street frontage, but it is likely that a new front path would ensure some legibility in this regard. Whilst the roof pitch would blend with the main roof, its lower overall height would nevertheless be discernible. Given that the existing front door is not readily visible within the street scene due to its position set back some distance from the front elevation, there would not be a harmful change in this regard. 12. Overall, it is concluded that the proposal would not have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the host dwelling or wider area. It would comply with Policy EC2 of the Castle Point Local Plan (1998) (LP) which, amongst other things, seeks to ensure a high standard of design having particular regard to scale, design, materials and setting and the appearance of spaces around buildings. Overall, it would also comply with the RDG. 13. It would also satisfy the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which, amongst other things, seeks good design that is sympathetic to local character and the surrounding built environment. Living conditions 14. The Council acknowledges that the bedroom window meets the BRE Guidance but expresses concern reading the effect of the proximity of the 1.8 metre boundary fence which would be 1.2 metres from the window. Whilst this fence would be closer than is currently the case with the existing bedroom, it would nevertheless allow for natural light to be received above its height into the upper part of what is quite a large window. Overall, it is considered that an acceptable internal environment would be provided. 15. The proposal would result in the loss of the side garden area that serves the property with only a narrow strip remaining. There is no direct access from the existing dwelling to this area with the only ‘back’ door being to the rear of the existing porch to the larger rear garden area that appears to be the main area used for amenity purposes. Whilst this area is smaller than the recommended 50sq.m. in policy RDG6, it would nevertheless provide a reasonably sized area for what is a small one bed property. In addition, it is similar in size to the rear amenity areas that serve the adjoining dwellings at Nos. 98 and 100 which whilst built at a time that pre-dated the RDG, nevertheless provide context for the appeal site. In these circumstances, I find that it would not be unacceptably small. 16. Overall, the proposal would accord with LP Policy EC2 which seeks high quality design that promotes comfort and ease of use. Whilst not fully meeting all relevant RDG standards, overall, it is concluded that an acceptable living environment would be provided for the occupants of the extended dwelling. Conclusion 17. For the reasons given above the appeal is allowed. P B Jarvis INSPECTOR