2 Waterside Cottages , Waterside Road, Paglesham, Essex, SS4 2ES Data via plota.co.uk

26/00638/DPDP1 - Determination Under Part 1( Householder) Approved

Proposal

Householder Prior Approval for Single Storey Rear Extension. Projection 6m from Original Rear Wall, Eaves Height 3m, Maximum Height 3m. Data via plota.co.uk

View original council record ↗Last checked

Application progress

✓
Received
28 Aug 2026
✓
Validated
7 Sept 2026
✓
Approved
16 Oct 2026

Approved on 16 Oct 2026 · Last checked 19 Oct 2026

Site constraints 8

Green belt: London
Inappropriate development needs very special circumstances.
Green belt policy allows a short list of exceptions, such as limited extensions and replacement buildings. Anything else needs very special circumstances that clearly outweigh the harm. Some green belt land can count as grey belt, where it does not strongly serve the green belt's purposes. The council decides this in its green belt assessment or on each application, so we do not mark it here.
Read the government guidance ↗
Flood zone 3, rivers and sea
High chance: a 1 in 100 or greater annual chance from rivers, or 1 in 200 from the sea. Any development here needs a flood risk assessment. Defences are not counted.
The Environment Agency flood map for planning. Homes in zone 3 must also pass the sequential test. Surface water flooding is a separate map.
Flood map ↗
Agricultural land, grade 3a
Best and most versatile land (grades 1, 2 and 3a). Source: the Predictive Agricultural Land Classification Map (Defra and Natural England, 2025; the Welsh Government's Predictive ALC Map 2 in Wales), a model rather than a site survey. Natural England's Provisional ALC map (1:250,000, 1970s), which most planning maps still show, had this area as grade 1. The predicted grade is Defra's current estimate; only a site survey settles it.
Where development of farmland is needed, policy prefers poorer land over the best and most versatile (grades 1, 2 and 3a). Three sources: Natural England's post-1988 field surveys, which are definitive where they exist; the Defra predictive map for England (2025) and the Welsh Government predictive map, modelled from the soil map with 3a and 3b split; and the 1970s provisional map, which planners and other services still show, coarser and with grade 3 undivided. Where the provisional and predicted grades disagree, treat the predicted grade as the current estimate and expect an application to carry its own survey.
Public footpath about 23 m away
Matters where it crosses or adjoins the site: obstructing a path without a diversion order is an offence, and work cannot start until the order is confirmed.
Compiled from highway authority data, not the legal definitive map. A few authorities have not published, so no path shown is not proof there is none.
Special protection area about 200 m away: Crouch & Roach Estuaries (Mid-Essex Coast Phase 3)
Work nearby can need a habitats assessment.
Harm to a protected site is only accepted where there is no alternative and an overriding public interest.
Habitat network: Other Priority Habitats - NEZ
Where habitat is joined up enough to work as a network. Context, not a constraint on its own.
SSSI about 200 m away: The Cliff, Burnham-on-Crouch SSSI
Natural England may need consulting, depending on what is proposed.
Sites of special scientific interest are the best wildlife and geological sites in the country. Development likely to harm one is rarely permitted.
Also on the record
Priority habitat about 11 m away: Deciduous woodland.
Not affected
No scheduled monument at the site

Checked on 6 October 2026. The pin for this application is the centre of its postcode rather than the building, so distances to nearby designations are measured from the postcode and can be out by the width of the postcode area. Historic England, the Environment Agency, Natural England and council datasets, Open Government Licence. A boundary can run through a site and the council holds the definitive record: confirm with the council before relying on this.

Work with planning data?

Every application in Rochford - and every UK council - as a live feed, an API, or a bulk CSV export.

About Plota's data service

Important details

Council
Rochford
Application type
Determination Under Part 1( Householder)
Postcode
SS4 2ES
Received
28 Aug 2026
Validated
7 Sept 2026
Ward
Roche North And Rural Rochford District Council -
Parish
Paglesham Parish Council
Case officer
Show
Target decision
19 Oct 2026
Decision
Prior Approval of Details Not Required
Decision date
16 Oct 2026

How this decision compares

Decided in 39 days from validation, 18 days faster than Rochford's median of 57 for extensions. Approved, as 92% of extensions here are.

50%decided within 8 weeks
92%approved
254decided in the last year

Plota live figures for extensions decided by Rochford in the last twelve months, from validation. Rochford decision record →

Consultation & key dates

Planning Portal ref
PP-15192271
Comments by
29 Sept 2026
Rochford
Planning Authority Score
3.2/10
Poor
#230 of 296 councils
Relevant to this application:
Householder decisions

Rochford is slower than most councils at deciding householder applications, ranking #221 out of 296. Rochford is also one of the strictest councils - it refuses more householder applications than almost any other, with only 81% approved vs 90% nationally.

One of the strictest councils
only 81% approved vs 90% nationally
These figures are council-wide context, not a prediction for this application. View full council performance
Rochford decision statistics
Based on MHCLG data, the year to March 2026
79%
Overall approval rate
Below avg (87%) #265 of 296
81%
Householder approved
Below avg (90%) #275 of 296
53%
Decided in 8 weeks
Below avg (63%) #221 of 296
36%
Extended time limit
Below avg (41%) #112 of 296
62%
Minor dwellings approved
66 decided (1-9 homes)
100%
Major dwellings approved
3 decided (10+ homes)
86%
Change of use approved
14 decided
472
Total decisions
98 refused in the year to March 2026