35-room hotel extension at 21 - 25 High Street, Grays

What was proposed

The application sought a rear extension, two additional floors and conversion of the central commercial unit into a 35-room hotel while retaining two shops.

“This planning application seeks permission for the partial demolition of the existing rear structure(s) and erection of rear extensions to the ground and first floors and an additional two storeys over the three existing commercial units. Permission is also sought for a partial change of use from commercial (Use Class E) to a hotel (Use Class C1) providing 35 no. ensuite bedrooms of which includes 2no. rooms for persons with disabilities (1 no.”

“This planning application seeks permission for the partial demolition of the existing rear structure(s) and erection of rear extensions to the ground and first floors and an additional storey over the three existing commercial units. Permission is also sought for a partial change of use from commercial (Use Class E) to a hotel (Use Class C1) providing 35 no. ensuite bedrooms of which includes 2no rooms for persons with disabilities (1no.”

Officer report

The site and existing uses

The site is a mid-terrace building with three commercial units on High Street, occupied by a takeaway, pawnbroker and drycleaner.

“The application site is located on the east side of High Street in Grays town centre. It comprises of 3 commercial units on both the ground and first floor levels of a mid-terrace building.”

“The planning statement submitted in support of the application outlines that the three units are currently occupied as follows:”

Officer report

Earlier permission

A 26-room hotel scheme with a rear extension and one additional floor was approved in January 2026 but had not been implemented.

“The application follows a previously approved scheme (ref: 25/00852/FUL) granted permission in January 2026 for the erection of a rear extension a single additional floor, including external and internal alterations and part change of use from shops and ancillary space (Use class E) to hotel (Use class C1) with 26 bedrooms. This consent has not been implemented.”

Officer report

Why officers recommended refusal

Officers found the principle, neighbour amenity, highways and flood matters acceptable, but considered the additional height, scale and design harmful to the street scene.

“The principle of the proposed change of use is considered acceptable and there would be no unacceptable impact upon neighbour amenity as a result of the proposed development, subject to relevant conditions. There would also be no detrimental highways or flood impacts arising from the proposed development…”

“However, the scale, mass, height, form, detailed design and materials of the proposed development would result in an uncharacteristic and incongruous feature within the surrounding area. The development would appear as an alien feature in the street scene. Accordingly, the proposal would be considered unacceptable in terms of design, appearance and visual impact upon the character of the building and surrounding area.”

Officer report

Public representations

The application was advertised by neighbour letters and a site notice, and no written comments had been received when the report was prepared.

“The application was advertised via individual neighbour letter and a site notice was erected nearby. At the time of drafting this report, no written comments have been received.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant spoke in support of the application and explained why the additional floor and rooms were proposed.

Members’ questions

Members asked about the need for the additional floor, viability, consultation, visibility and parking; officers said parking was acceptable and not a severe refusal reason.

“Members queried how the public consultation was completed. The speaker confirmed that this was completed through the Council’s planning application consultation process and no independent consultation was completed.”

“Members sought clarification regarding parking. Officers advised the previous application was considered acceptable regarding the provision of no parking. Officers advised this would not be a severe reason to refuse the application.”

Minutes

The committee vote

Councillors voted eight in favour of refusal, with no votes against and no abstentions.

“Recommendation That the Chief Planning Officer be authorised to REFUSE planning permission for the development subject to those reasons set out in section 16 of the report.”

“For (8): Councillors Cherry, Taylor, P Davies, S Davies, Fuller, Lawrence, Mackintosh, Shakespeare Against (0): Abstain (0):”

Minutes

The decision and reasons

The committee refused permission because the development’s mass, height, scale, form, materials and appearance would be incongruous and out of character.

“The proposed development, by virtue of its mass, height, scale, form, detailed design, materials and appearance of the proposed development would result in an uncharacteristic and incongruous feature for the building and within the immediate surrounding area. The development…”

Officer report