Loft and rear extensions at 155 Kensington Road, Southend-on-Sea

What was proposed

The application sought permission for a hip-to-gable roof extension, rear dormer, single-storey rear extension and front rooflights.

“The application seeks part-retrospective planning permission for a hip to gable roof extension with a dormer to the rear, a single storey rear extension and rooflights to the front.”

“The hip to gable roof extension measures some 4m wide, 2.67m high and 7.9m deep. The dormer to the rear measures some 6.7m wide, 2.67m high and 4m deep. A lawful development certificate reference 24/01097/CLP was granted in 2024 for a hip to gable roof extension, dormer and rooflights.”

Officer report

The site and history

The site contains a semi-detached house beside residential and commercial uses, with earlier permissions and a lawful development certificate for related works.

“The application site contains a semi-detached dwellinghouse on the west side of Kensington Road. Kensington Road is predominantly residential in nature although No 153 to the immediate south of the application site is a tyre premises. Beyond that southwards are commercial uses fronting Woodgrange Drive. The site is not within a conservation area or subject to any site-specific planning policy designations.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval, finding acceptable design, neighbour impact, parking and highway effects subject to conditions.

“The principle of altering and extending the existing dwelling is considered acceptable and policy compliant, subject to the proposal appropriately addressing the relevant detailed planning considerations. Whilst third party concern has been raised about conversion of the dwelling into a House in multiple occupation, the applicant has not applied for this and has confirmed that the intended use is as a dwellinghouse.”

“For the reasons outlined above the proposal is found to be acceptable and compliant with the relevant planning policies and guidance. The proposed development would have an acceptable visual impact, would not result in significant harm to the residential amenity of neighbouring occupiers and would have an acceptable impact on parking and highways.”

Officer report

What people said

Thirty-six representations from 33 properties objected, citing scale, appearance, structural safety, privacy, noise, parking, construction and possible HMO concerns.

“Fourteen (14) neighbouring properties have been notified. Thirty-six (36) representations from 33 different properties objecting to the application have been received and are summarised below:”

“Loft extension large and not recessed and is larger than permitted development limits • Structural integrity of dormer • Extension is large blocking natural light and casting shadow • Damage to chimney structure • Development unsafe and structurally unsound • Noise and privacy concerns • Shape of roof not in keeping with original design • Dwelling to be converted in flats • The works have already taken place • Loss of privacy • Increased congestion and parking issues • Not…”

Officer report

Who spoke

A local resident spoke against the application, and the applicant responded to the objection.

The committee’s decision

The committee refused planning permission because the development’s size, scale, bulk and mass harmed the character, appearance and amenity of the area.

“That PLANNING PERMISSION BE REFUSED for the following reason:”

“The development by reason of its size, scale, bulk and mass results in a development that is significantly out of keeping in the area to the significant detriment of the character and appearance and amenity of the streetscene and surrounding area.”

Minutes