Skip to main content
Official casework recordAllowedCurrent release

Appeal 6008492

Public case and site metadata stored from the official casework database, including fields that were empty in the source release.

A clearer next step

See how Inspectors approached issues like yours

Bring your planning decision into a private workspace. We separate the disputed points, then match them with source-located Inspector reasoning from similar appeals.

  • See which issues the decision appears to turn on
  • Compare the facts and open the full appeal records

One private comparison

How the refusal review works

One-off service · No subscription

Similar appeals are evidence to inspect, not a prediction of your outcome.

Official decision document

The decision, section by section

6 sections

Read the development description and the Inspector’s text from the official decision PDF in source order. Source headings are retained where available. Personal and contact details are removed by an automated privacy filter; this is source material, not Rules for You analysis.

Section 01

Development description

described in the application form as a “single storey side extension”.

  1. Section 02

    Decision

    The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey side extension, at [site address] , in accordance with the terms of the application (reference 26/00024/FULHH), subject to the conditions set out in the attached Schedule of Conditions.

  2. Section 03

    Main issue

    The main issue to be determined in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surroundings.

  3. Section 04

    Reasons

    [site address] is an attractive coastal town in Essex. It has a long, developed sea coastline, from a golf course in the south to Walton-on-the-Naze in the north, although the built-up area is separated from the beach by a wide parkland strip. Thus set back from the coastline, residential areas are characterised by dwellings of various styles and sizes in a predominantly suburban setting.

    The appeal site at number [site address] is located in a residential frontage, set away from the sea in the residential part of the town, where there is some variety in house types, although semi-detached pairs are typical. Some off-street parking spaces have been provided on front gardens but the locality is not over-developed.

    Number 19 itself occupies a corner plot, with its side frontage on [address]. It is a two-storey semi-detached house, with number [address], of brickwork with a hipped roof in a traditional design. There is a parking space for two cars at the front of the house but the house also benefits from a front garden on the corner of the plot, which is relatively well screened by a fence and large shrubs (or small trees). As well as protecting the privacy of the householders, this also enhances the streetscene. Appeal Decision: 6008492

    It is now proposed to add a single-storey extension to the side of the house, which would project forward of other buildings in [address], including the immediately neighbouring house.

    The ‘National Planning Policy Framework’ emphasises the aim of “achieving well designed places” in the broadest sense (notably at Section 12), while making effective use of land and encouraging economic activity. It is aimed at achieving good design standards generally, by adding to the overall quality of the area and being visually attractive and sympathetic to local character and history, although it is also recognised that appropriate change may include increased densities. The achievement of good design includes protecting existing residential amenities and providing good standards of accommodation in new development.

    Policies in the Development Plan also share these basic principles. In the ‘Tendring District Local Plan 2013-2033 and Beyond’, Section 1 is the “[name] Section” (adopted in January 2021), while Section 2 focusses on the area of Tendring, more specifically. Policy SP7 (in Section 1) is concerned with “[name]”, and Policy SPL 3 (in Section 2) promotes “[name]”. [name] seek to achieve high standards of urban and architectural design, responding to local character and context.

    The ‘[name] is also relevant but it does not have the force of the statutory Development Plan.

    The proposed extension would approximately align with the front elevation of the house in [address] (with a small offset), but it would project well forward of the “building line” in [address]. It would have an impact on the streetscene, in view of its location at the junction of the two roads. As a single-storey building, the visual impact would be limited, however, while the streetscene does offer some variety in any case, for example in the layout of the opposite corner. I am not persuaded that the introduction of a single-storey extension on this frontage would undermine the quality of the surroundings.

    It is proposed that the extension should be finished with “[name]” cladding under a pitched slate roof (as shown on the submitted drawings). Thus, although the form of the extension would imitate the traditional form of the existing house (and others in the vicinity), its architectural image would be in contrast with the materials of the existing house. Contrasting materials have been used successfully nearby, however, including on the neighbouring house, and I take the view that variety in the townscape is not necessarily harmful.

    In relation to the immediate neighbour at number [address], I note that the proposed new extension would be sited to the north of the neighbouring front garden and I accept that the extension would have only a limited impact on the outlook from that property, especially by comparison with the existing high boundary hedge.

    In this case, therefore, I am convinced that the new extension would add interest to the townscape and that it would not harm the character or appearance of the surroundings.

    Evidently, the appeal site lies within an established urban area, which is “sustainable” in planning terms, and the proposed extension would be a useful addition to the accommodation at [site address] . The contribution that the Appeal Decision: 6008492 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. I have concluded that the project would not be in conflict with national planning policies or with the Development Plan as a whole.

    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

  4. Section 05

    decision.

    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.

  5. Section 06

    SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS

    The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

    The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved drawings: drawing number 19/PBF (Existing Ground Floor Plan); drawing number 19/PBF/1 (Existing Ground Floor Plan); drawing number 19/PBF/2 (Proposed Ground Floor Plan); drawing number 19/PBF/3 (Existing and [name]); drawing number 19/PBF (Location Plan and Block Plan).

Planning inspector and document dates

The official casework attribution is grouped under a one-way keyed hash and shown only by its local identifier. Decision-letter dates and page references are extracted by fixed first-page rules and checked against that authoritative record.

  • Appeal Decision

    Extracted inspector · page 1
    Inspector attribution ID 285No official casework-database value to compare
    Extracted decision date · page 1
    23 June 2026Matches the official casework database
    Extracted site visit dates
    10 June 2026 (page 1)

Reference and authority

Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.

Case reference
6008492
Application reference
26/00024/FULHH
Lead case reference
Not recorded
Planning authority
Tendring District Council
Planning authority code
E07000076

Casework details

The casework, procedure, development and linking details supplied by the official record.

Casework type
Householder (HAS)
Procedure
Written Representations
Development type
Householder developments
Appeal type reason
Not recorded
Appeal reason
refused
Type detail
Householder
Jurisdiction
No Jurisdiction Associated
Link status
Not recorded

Site and development

Published appeal-site measurements and planning designations, without the withheld precise location fields.

Site area
0 hectares
Floor space
258 m²
Number of residences
Not recorded
Site in Green Belt
No
Agricultural holding
Not recorded
Affects setting of a listed building
Yes
Historic building grant made
Not recorded
Relates to a conservation area
Not recorded
Flooding is an issue
Not recorded
Site within an AONB
Not recorded
Site within an SSSI
Not recorded

Decision and dates

The published outcome and every imported case date.

Official decision
Allowed
Decision category
Allowed
Received date
21 April 2026
Valid date
21 April 2026
Start date
20 May 2026
Planning authority decision date
17 March 2026
Appeal decision date
23 June 2026

Case administration

Published recovery, call-in, costs and enforcement information for this case.

Redetermined
Not recorded
Bespoke
Not recorded
Date recovered
Not recorded
Date not recovered or derecovered
Not recorded
Call-in date
Not recorded
Costs applied for
No
Enforcement grounds count
Not recorded
Enforcement grounds
Not recorded

Source and catalogue history

When this record appeared in the rolling official release and when the catalogue stored it.

Source
Planning Inspectorate casework database
Source data system
Back Office
Dataset status
Current release
Catalogue record ID
90895
First seen
20 August 2026 at 14:25
Last seen
20 August 2026 at 16:29
Removed from release
Not recorded
Record created
20 August 2026 at 14:25
Record updated
24 August 2026 at 16:21