Single-storey residential annexe at 35 Dungannon Drive, Thorpe Bay

Summary of planning committee decision

Decided by Southend Planning Committee on 21 Jan 2026.

25/01335/FULRefusedAgainst officer advice

What was proposed

Retrospective permission was sought for a detached single-storey rear outbuilding containing living, kitchen, bedroom and bathroom accommodation.

“Retrospective planning permission is sought to erect a detached single storey outbuilding to the rear of the site. The outbuilding is some 9.55m wide, 5.77m deep and 4m high (2.7m high to the eaves).”

“The outbuilding has an open plan living/kitchen area, a bedroom and a bathroom. The outbuilding is finished externally in white render to match the existing dwelling.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site contains a detached bungalow at a road junction in a residential area outside a conservation area and site-specific planning designations.

“The application site contains a detached bungalow at the junction of Dungannon Drive and Johnstone Road. The area is residential in nature. The site is not within a conservation area or subject to any site-specific planning policy designations.”

Officer report

Earlier applications and enforcement

Earlier applications included a granted extension, a refused and later granted lawful development certificate, and two recorded enforcement matters.

“Table 1: Relevant Planning History of the Application Site Reference Description Outcome [Date] 22/02369/FULH Erect single storey side and rear extension with rooflights to side and rear elevations (Part Retrospective) Granted [21 st…”

“March 2023] 23/00711/CLP Outbuilding to rear (Lawful development certificate - proposed) Refused [17 th July 2023] 23/01273/CLP Outbuilding to rear (Lawful development certificate - proposed) Granted [20 th…”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the development was considered acceptable in design, residential amenity, parking and highway terms, subject to keeping it ancillary.

“The outbuilding is primarily visible from the Johnstone Road streetscene and due to the use of incorporating materials and its orientation does not appear at odds with the existing dwelling and the streetscene. An acceptable amount of outdoor space is retained with an ancillary outbuilding.”

“The development is found to be acceptable in terms of its design and impact on the character and appearance of the area. It is also found to have an acceptable impact on the residential amenity of neighbouring occupiers. No significant highway and parking impacts have been identified. For these reasons the proposal is found to be acceptable and compliant with the relevant planning policies and guidance.”

Officer report

What people objected to

Seven interested parties and the residents association raised concerns about overdevelopment, separate use, design, privacy, construction and planning history.

“Ten (10) neighbouring properties were notified of the application by letter. Representations from seven (7) interested parties have been received, which are summarised below:”

“Concerns as to the process by which a plan for a small games room can become a medium size bungalow; • Not “auxiliary” [sic] but a one-bedroom bungalow; • Side entrance leading onto Johnstone Road can be used as rental property; • Could set a precedent for similar development in the area; • Siting and design of the outbuilding not in accordance with previous plans; • Inconsistencies of what is built with the submitted plans; • The front door is not facing the property; •…”

Officer report

The committee vote

The committee resolved that planning permission be refused.

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

Minutes

Why permission was refused

The committee found the outbuilding akin to a new dwelling, with an overbearing visual impact harming the site, streetscene and wider area.

“The development on the site, by reason of its scale, form, siting and appearance, has resulted in an addition akin to a new dwelling within the rear garden of the main dwelling creating an overbearing visual impact to the detriment of the character and appearance of the site, the streetscene and the wider area.”

Minutes

The members' reasons

The members' reasons are quoted from the minutes above, under “Why permission was refused”.

Sources

  • Southend Planning Committee minutes, 21 January 2026
  • Agenda and papers (council website)

Source: Plota analysis of Southend's committee minutes and officer report. Quotations are the council's own words; headings and summaries are Plota's.

Committee decisions and nationwide planning applications, in one API

The Plota API returns planning applications from every council we cover, each with its decision, whether a committee or officers decided it, and the committee date. Build it into your own tools.

See the API →

At the meeting

Council
Southend
Date
Wednesday 21 January 2026
Recommendation
Officers recommended approval
Committee decided
Refused, against officer advice
Minutes
The council's minutes
Meeting
Agenda and papers (council website)
Application
The application (council website)

This committee's year

26 decisions in the 12 months to this meeting, 4 against officer advice.

Source: Plota analysis of the committee's minutes.

Every decision by this council's committees →