Double storey side, rear and front extension and internal alteration render to match surrounding properties. Incorporating previously approved double storey rear extension 99/00919/FUL which was half completed at construction stage within the design

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 12 August 2026 by B Pattison BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 26th August 2026 Appeal Ref: 6012365 308 Ongar Road, Brentwood, Essex CM15 9HR • 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 Nick Bertenshaw against the decision of Brentwood Borough Council. • The application Ref is 26/00092/HHA. • The development proposed is Double storey side, rear and front extension and internal alteration render to match surrounding properties. Incorporating previously approved double storey rear extension 99/00919/FUL which was half completed at construction stage within the design. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for Double storey side, rear and front extension and internal alteration render to match surrounding properties. Incorporating previously approved double storey rear extension 99/00919/FUL which was half completed at construction stage within the design at 308 Ongar Road, Brentwood, Essex CM15 9HR in accordance with the terms of application, Ref 26/00092/HHA and the plans submitted with it, subject to the attached schedule of conditions. Preliminary Matter 2. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was updated on 17 August 2026. Although I have made my determination against the updated national policy context, the relevant changes to the Framework are not fundamental to matters which are determinative to the outcome of this appeal. Main Issues 3. The main issues are: • The impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; and • The impact of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of 306 Ongar Road, with particular reference to outlook and light. Reasons Character and appearance 4. The appeal site consists of a two storey detached house with a large single storey rear projection and a side garage. Beyond this, a flat roof BBQ area projects a significant depth to the rear along the shared boundary with 306 Ongar Road (No 306). The house has a front gable, two storey bay window and a prominent Appeal Decision 6012365 2 chimney. Materials used on the elevations include pebble dash, red brick and timber. 5. The appeal property is set back from Ongar Road behind a gravel driveway and parking area. This side of Ongar Road is characterised by a mix of two storey detached houses, chalet bungalows with accommodation within the roof space, and bungalows of varying designs, which are generally set back from the road along a consistent building line. As a result, there is limited uniformity in the design of dwellings, with significant variation in their height, width and overall bulk. A range of roof forms are also evident, including hipped, pitched and ‘barn-hipped’ roofs, together with a mixture of gables and dormer features. 6. The proposal would not increase the overall height of the dwelling. The first floor side extension’s roof would connect to the principal roof slope with a hipped roof which would incorporate a smaller gable feature. This feature would remain subordinate in scale to the dwelling's principal front gable. The hipped form would help to reduce the perceived bulk of the extension while enabling the addition to integrate successfully with the appearance of the host dwelling. Given the variety of roof forms that already exist within the street scene, the roof design would not appear as an incongruous addition. 7. The two storey side extension and the roof extension would increase the width and bulk of the property and would be visible in views along Ongar Road. However, the plans indicate that there would be a reasonable gap of 1.7 metres maintained between the first floor side wall and the ownership boundary. Whilst there would be some loss of openness, as with all extensions, I conclude that a sufficient visual gap with the neighbouring property would remain. 8. The proposal’s overall width, coupled with the retention of gaps from either side elevation to the appeal site’s boundaries would be broadly similar to the built form of 310 Ongar Road, the adjoining property immediately to the right when viewed from the public highway. As a result, I do not find that this would be more visually prominent than other dwellings within the street scene. 9. The rear extension would not be particularly prominent in views from Ongar Road. The eaves of the proposed roof would align with those of the existing dwelling, and the triple hipped gable design would help to reduce the perceived bulk and massing of the extension. Furthermore, the extension would not project beyond the rear first-floor elements of either adjoining property and, as such, would not appear unduly prominent. 10. For the reasons outlined above, I conclude that the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the area. Accordingly, I find no conflict with Policy BE14 of the Brentwood Local Plan (2022) (LP) insofar as it requires proposals to meet high design standards. Neither do I find conflict with the principles of the Framework and National Design Guide that seek good design sympathetic to the local area. Living conditions 11. No 306 is a chalet bungalow which is set back from the shared boundary with the appeal site. Its ground floor has large glazed windows on its rear elevation which open onto its garden. A bay window, door and rooflights on its side elevation directly face the appeal site. Appeal Decision 6012365 3 12. During my site visit, I observed that the bay window and rooflights serve the same room as the large rear facing glazing. As such, they are not the sole sources of natural light or outlook for the room in question. Rather, they appear to function as secondary openings, with the room also benefiting from the large rear facing glazing and an open aspect towards the rear garden. Furthermore, any outlook from the side facing openings is already somewhat limited, as they are orientated towards the appeal building. 13. The side extension would bring built form closer to the neighbouring side facing bay window and rooflights. This would inevitably result in some reduction in the amount of light reaching these openings and would also lead to a degree of restriction in outlook from them. However, taking into account the presence of the larger rear facing glazing and the open aspect towards the rear garden, I conclude that the proposal would not result in an unacceptable loss of light or outlook for the occupiers of the affected ground floor room. 14. The first floor dormer window at No 306 faces the appeal site. The submitted evidence indicates that this window serves a bathroom, which, in my planning judgement, would not normally be regarded as a habitable room for the purposes of assessing daylight or outlook. Whilst the proposed built form would extend closer to this window, the roof would pitch sharply away from it, thereby reducing its visual presence. Consequently, having regard to both the design of the proposal and the room's use as a bathroom, the development would not result in an unacceptable loss of light or outlook. 15. Owing to the limited projection of the rear extension beyond the rear elevation of No 306, the rear element of the proposal would not result in a significant loss of light or an undue sense of enclosure when viewed from the neighbouring property's rear windows or garden area. 16. For the reasons outlined above, the proposal would not have a harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 306. I therefore find that it would comply with Policy BE14 of the LP insofar as it seeks to protect the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring adjoining properties. Other Matters 17. I have noted the concerns raised by a neighbouring occupier. Given my findings in relation to the design of the proposal and the retention of space between the side elevation and shared boundaries, I do not find that the proposal would amount to an overdevelopment on the plot. 18. It has been suggested that the proposal has failed to address previous concerns related to a recently refused planning application. I have also noted comments in relation to the relevance of a historic planning permission at the appeal site. However, I have assessed the proposal on the basis of the specific drawings submitted for this planning appeal, and have found the proposal to have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area. Conditions 19. The Council has provided a list of conditions, which I have assessed in regard to the Framework and the advice in the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). I have Appeal Decision 6012365 4 made such amendments as necessary to comply with those documents and for clarity and consistency. 20. In addition to the standard time limit, I have imposed an approved plans condition in the interests of certainty. 21. A condition requiring that the new first floor side facing windows are obscure glazed is necesarry to protect the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers. However, I have amended the wording of the suggested condition for clarity and to enable the windows to be at least partially openable. This ensures that the condition is reasonable as required by policy DM6 of the Framework. Conclusion 22. For the above reasons, and having had regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the proposed development would accord with the development plan and the Framework. The appeal is therefore allowed. B Pattison INSPECTOR 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 plans: 4041-25A1-01; 4041-25A1-02; 4041-25A1-03; 4041-25A1-04; 4041-25A2-05 and site location plan. 3) The extension hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the three first floor side facing windows have been fitted with obscured glazing, and no part of those windows that is less than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which it is installed shall be capable of being opened. Once installed the obscured glazing shall be retained thereafter. END OF SCHEDULE