Single storey and two storey rear extensions

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 8 September 2026 By Terrence Kemmann-Lane JP DipTP FRTPI MCMI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 18 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6010843 37 Crown Road, Clacton-on-Sea, CO15 1AU • 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 Craig James against the decision of Tendring District Council. • The application Ref is 26/00399/FULHH. • The development proposed is single storey and two storey rear extensions. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue in this case is the effect the proposed 2-storey extension on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers at Nos.35 and 39 Crown Road. Reasons 3. The site is located towards the south of Crown Road, situated within the Clacton- on-Sea Settlement Development Boundary. The appeal site is a semi-detached two storey 1960’s house, with a 2.5m wide shared access with No.39. 4. It is clear that the appellant, in proposing the extensions, considered the impact on neighbouring properties, particularly with regard to the 2-storey element. This element would extend out beyond No.39 by 4m, set back from the full 6.5m of the proposed ground floor extension, the intent being not to impose an overbearing structure on this neighbour. 5. In spite of the intention, the proposed 2-storey extension would be about 1.2m from the shared boundary, and the two-storey form would introduce a visually dominant and overbearing form when viewed from No.39. In particular, windows serving No.39 that face towards the appeal site, together with the rear elevation window, benefit from a south facing aspect. The outlook and quality of light would be diminished, resulting in the loss of the open aspect currently enjoyed. The two- storey solid-walled structure, extending approximately 4.5m along the shared boundary, would create a sense of enclosure and give rise to material harm to the amenity of these neighbours. 6. Turning to the effect on the attached neighbour at No.35, the total increase in footprint of 6.5m along the shared boundary, some 5.2m. wide, would be a large addition to the semi-detached dwelling, with the flank wall next to this neighbour being set just 0.2m from the curtilage boundary. With the height to eaves of 2.2m Appeal Decision 6010843 2 and a maximum height to the ridge of this single storey element being 3.55m, the proposal would be visually dominant and overbearing for this neighbour, creating a sense of enclosure when viewed from their rear garden area and rear facing openings. 7. The appellant points out that other 2-storey extensions have been built in Crown Road, such as at Nos.45 and 55. However, I have to deal with the circumstances before me and make a judgement on those. I also appreciate the benefits of the proposal to the appellant and his family which I have set against the matters dealt with above. However, these do not outweigh the negative aspects that I have described. 8. I conclude that the proposal would give rise to unacceptable harm to the residential amenity of Nos.35 and 39 Crown Road, contrary to the requirements of Policy SP7 (Section 1) and Policy SPL3 of the Tendring District Local Plan (Section 2). The harmful effect of the proposed rear extensions on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers at Nos.35 and 39 Crown Road justifies the refusal of permission. For these reasons the appeal will be dismissed. Terrence Kemmann-Lane INSPECTOR