New rear and side extension with flat roof and new enclosed entrance porch with mono pitched roof (revised application following earlier refused application 25/00937/FULHH)

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 14 August 2026 by Jonathan Price BA(Hons) DipTP DMS MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 25 August 2026 Appeal Ref: 6012179 30 Slade Road, Holland on Sea, Essex CO15 5EH • 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 Tracey Harrendence against the decision of Tendring District Council. • The application Ref is 26/00481/FULHH. • The development proposed is new rear and side extension with flat roof and new enclosed entrance porch with mono pitched roof (revised application following earlier refused application 25/00937/FULHH). Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matter 2. On 17 August 2026 the Government published the revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). This does not alter the requirement in planning law that appeals be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Because the relevant development plan policies in this case are not materially inconsistent with those of the new Framework, I have not deemed it necessary to seek the further views of the parties. Main Issue 3. The effects of this proposal on the living conditions at the neighbouring dwelling at 28 Slade Road, with particular regard to outlook. Reasons 4. The semi-detached house at No 30 forms part of a frontage of modestly-scaled and closely spaced residential development which observes an even building line. The proposal amends an earlier scheme which had been dismissed on appeal1, seeking to address the Inspector’s concerns. These had related just to the side and rear extension and so the separate entrance porch remains unchanged. 5. As previously, the extension would wrap around the rear corner of the dwelling, adjacent to the corresponding part of the semi-detached house at No 28. Like the previous Inspector, I did not observe ground levels at No 28 to be significantly lower as to exacerbate the impact of the proposed extensions. The previous Inspector had found the height and depth of the proposed development extending towards the shared boundary and rising above the boundary fence to be 1 Appeal ref: 6001311 dismissed on 10 February 2026. Appeal Decision 6012179 2 overbearing and materially harmful to the outlook for the occupiers of No 28, particularly from their ground floor rear facing windows and rear garden. 6. This proposal changes the previously hipped roof to a flat one. This would remove any aspect of a pitch rising away from No 28, and the view instead would be of the closest edge of the flat roof. This would be at a slightly greater height than the eaves to the hipped roof proposed previously. Compared to this earlier proposal, the width towards the neighbours’ side and the depth into the garden would be reduced slightly. 7. Giving appropriate weight to the previous Inspector’s findings, the flat roof and slightly reduced extent of the extension would be insufficient for me to reach a different conclusion. Notwithstanding the changes made, the side and rear extension proposed would still have quite an overbearing impact on the outlook from the rear windows and adjacent area of back garden at No 28, causing material harm to the living conditions of these neighbouring occupiers. This brings the proposal into conflict with Policy SP7 of the Section 1 Tendring Local Plan, which applies place shaping principles including to protect the amenity of existing and future residents from overbearing new developments. There would also be conflict with Policy SPL3 of the Section 2 Tendring Local Plan, which applies criteria including that buildings be designed and orientated to ensure adequate outlook for future and existing residents. Other Matters 8. The appellant has provided detailed plans of how No 30 might be extended at the side and rear by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015. This is a realistic fallback scenario and is given appropriate weight as such. The taller and longer extension facing onto the side of No 28 would be harmful to these occupiers’ living conditions. Crucially however, such an extension would not have such an overbearing impact on outlook from the main rear facing windows of ground floor habitable rooms or the adjacent parts of the back garden. On this basis, the existence of such a fallback option would fail to outweigh the harm found from the proposal under consideration. Conclusion 9. Material considerations would not indicate this appeal be decided otherwise than in accordance with the development plan, with which there would as a whole be conflict. Consequently, I conclude the appeal fails. Jonathan Price INSPECTOR