Follows: “Creation of first floor extension to provide habitable accommodation in addition to existing; Construction first floor part rear and two storey part front extensions; Fenestration and material alterations

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 10 August 2026 by R C Shrimplin MA(Cantab) DipArch RIBA FRTPI FCIArb MCIL an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date:02 September 2026 Appeal Reference: 6012213 3 Cory Drive, Hutton, Essex CM13 2PT • 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 Miss M. Breden against the decision of Brentwood Borough Council. • The application reference is 26/00320/HHA. • The development proposed is described in the application form as follows: “Creation of first floor extension to provide habitable accommodation in addition to existing; Construction first floor part rear and two storey part front extensions; Fenestration and material alterations”. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for “Creation of first floor extension to provide habitable accommodation in addition to existing; Construction first floor part rear and two storey part front extensions; Fenestration and material alterations”, at 3 Cory Drive, Hutton, Essex CM13 2PT, in accordance with the terms of the application (reference 26/00320/HHA), subject to the conditions set out in the attached Schedule of Conditions. Preliminary point 2. The ‘National Planning Policy Framework’ was revised in August 2026 but, in this instance, the issues most relevant to the appeal remain unaffected by the revisions that have been made to it. I am therefore satisfied that there is no requirement to seek further submissions on the revised Framework, and that no party would be disadvantaged by such a course of action. In this appeal, I have had regard to the most recent version, of course. Main issues 3. The first main issue to be determined in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host building and its surroundings. The second is the effect of the proposed development on the residential amenities of neighbours (whether unacceptable harm would be caused by overbearing appearance). Reasons 4. The appeal site is located in an extensive residential area. Cory Road is softened by grass verges and the homes are set back behind front gardens that are generally landscaped, while also making some provision for off-street parking. The dwellings have good-sized plots and the roads are laid out in a meandering pattern, creating a pleasant suburban environment. Appeal Decision: 6012213 2 5. In the vicinity of the appeal site, the existing dwellings are typically detached properties, either bungalows or two-storey houses. The building that is the subject of this appeal, at number 3 Cory Drive, is a bungalow, with white rendered and painted external walls on the front elevation, under a hipped roof. It has been extended at the rear by the addition of flat-roofed elements and there is some accommodation in the roof space, at first-floor level. 6. It is now proposed to construct a first-floor extension to increase the habitable accommodation, including variations to the existing fenestration and other alterations. 7. Development Plan Policies include an emphasis on the importance of good design. Specifically, Policy BE14 of the Brentwood Local Plan 2016-2033 (which was adopted in March 2022) requires development proposals to “meet high design standards” and, among other things, to “safeguard the living conditions” of neighbours. 8. This approach reflects provisions in the revised version of the National Planning Policy Framework which, like its predecessor, aims at “achieving well-designed places”. 9. The proposed extensions and alterations would have the effect of radically changing the scale and appearance of the existing building but the finished scheme must be assessed on its own merits. The existing modest bungalow sits between another bungalow at number 5 and a two-storey house at number 1, while there is a range of property types in the immediate vicinity, including two-storey houses beyond number 1, towards the east (in Burses Way), and along Cory Drive to the west, opposite the appeal site. 10. I acknowledge that, in principle, a two-storey house would not be out of place at number 3, as the streetscene includes a mix of house types, in traditional forms. The finished house would have a main hipped roof, marking its separateness from its neighbours, with a gable feature on the front elevation that would be compatible with the overall design and with others in the area. The finished house would occupy almost the full width of its plot and its proposed roof shape appears to be somewhat awkward (from the roof plan). Nevertheless, I am satisfied that it would integrate well into the streetscene. It would change the nature of the existing building but it would not cause undue harm to the character and appearance of the surroundings. 11. In relation to the effect of the proposed development on immediate neighbours, it is necessary to consider the impact that the proposed development would have on numbers 5 and 1 Cory Drive, either side of the appeal site. 12. Number 5 Cory Drive, to the west of the appeal site, is a detached bungalow with an integral garage within that part of the front elevation that is adjacent to the common boundary with the appeal site. The proposed single-storey front extension would not have a harmful effect on the living conditions at number 5. 13. At the rear of the appeal building, the proposed first floor extension would project to the rear of the neighbour but I accept that the rearward projection would be limited and that it would not have an unacceptable effect on the outlook at the rear of number 5. Nor would it cause significant overshadowing or other harm. Appeal Decision: 6012213 3 14. The proposed two-storey feature that forms part of the proposed front elevation would project forward of the front elevation at number 1 Cory Drive but it would not be out of place in the streetscene and it would not harm this neighbour’s residential amenities. At the rear, again, the proposed first floor extension would project beyond the rear of the neighbouring building but it would not impinge unduly on the outlook from the neighbour’s existing windows, nor would the rear extension as a whole undermine their living conditions. 15. Hence, I have concluded that the proposed development would not cause unacceptable harm to the residential amenities of neighbours (whether by overbearing appearance or in any other way). 16. Evidently, the appeal site lies within an established urban area, which is “sustainable” in planning terms, and the proposed extensions and alterations would amount to a useful addition to the accommodation at 3 Cory Drive. The contribution that the appeal scheme would make to the provision of residential accommodation in the locality, even though it would be limited, weighs in favour of the appeal and I have concluded that the project would not be in conflict with the Development Plan, in principle. In short, I am persuaded that the scheme before me can properly be permitted, subject to conditions, and, although I have considered all the matters that have been raised in the representations, I have found nothing to cause me to alter my decision. 17. I have, however, also considered the need for conditions and I have concluded that conditions are necessary to define the planning permission and to ensure that quality is maintained. 18. I also concur with the proposition that a condition is needed to require windows above ground floor level in the side elevations of the finished development to be glazed with obscured glass. Moreover, I agree that the flat roofs that form part of the finished design must not be used as balconies or terraces in any form. These restrictions are necessary to protect neighbours’ privacy. Roger C. Shrimplin INSPECTOR Appeal Decision: 6012213 4 SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved drawings: drawing number C.O.H.B-01A (Proposed Ground and First Floor Plans; Proposed Elevations and Roof Outline); drawing number C.O.H.B-02 (Existing Ground and Roof Accommodation Plans; Existing Elevations); drawing number C.O.H.B-03A (Section; Notes; Site Location Plan; Block Plan). 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. 4) All windows above ground floor level (including in the stairwell) in the east and west (side) elevations of the house as hereby permitted, except for that part of any window which is at least 1.7 metres above finished floor level in the room in which the window is installed, shall be permanently glazed in obscured glass and shall also be fixed shut, before the room in which the window is located is first occupied. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no further modifications to these windows shall be made and no windows, doors or openings of any kind shall be inserted in these elevations of the building without the express written approval of the local planning authority. 5) No part of the roof areas of the finished building as hereby permitted shall be used as a balcony, roof garden or similar amenity area and no permanent pedestrian access shall be provided to the roof areas from upper floors.