Two-storey side extension at Windy Corner, Horndon on the Hill

What was proposed

The application sought an 8.2-metre by 4.8-metre two-storey side extension, with a dormer and two roof lights.

“The application is a third submission for a proposed two storey side extension measuring. 8.2 by 4.8m. There is also associated dormer and two roof lights.”

“The application is submitted as a Householder application – it involves a proposed two storey side extension measuring. 8.2 by 4.8m. There is also associated dormer and two roof lights to match the existing dwelling.”

Officer report

The site

Windy Corner is a detached two-storey dwelling in the Metropolitan Green Belt, visible from Kirkham Road and Kirkham Avenue.

“The application site relates to Windy Corner, a detached, two storey dwelling located within Horndon On The Hill. The surrounding area is varied in character and appearance and so there is no prevailing characteristic. The application site is visible from Kirkham Road and Kirkham Avenue and much like the surrounding dwellings, the application site is sizable.”

“The site within the Metropolitan Green Belt…”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Two earlier two-storey extension applications were refused, and the later decision was dismissed on appeal.

“Application Reference Description of Proposal Decision 06/00207/FUL Formation of half gabled extensions to either side of roof and front dormers. Approved 07/00004/FUL Demolition of existing garage and construction of two storey rear extension. Refused 07/00729/FUL Demolition of existing garage and construction of two storey rear extension. Refused 07/00827/FUL New boundary wall 2.12 metres in height.”

Officer report

Why officers recommended refusal

Officers considered the extension disproportionate because its combined footprint would substantially exceed the allowance for two reasonably sized rooms in the Green Belt.

“On this basis, the combined floor area of the extension would be around 132sqm and therefore significantly over the two reasonable size rooms allowance. It is for this reason; the proposal is contrary to the development plan given the proposal would result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building and in turn reduce the openness of the Green Belt. The overall planning balance assessment is set out in the conclusion below.”

Officer report

Design and neighbours

Officers found no harmful design impact or additional neighbour amenity harm, and considered the parking provision adequate.

“Given the position of the dwelling away from neighbouring properties, it is not considered that the proposal would result in a new or additional harm, such as an overlooking or overbearing impact upon the residential amenity of neighbouring properties that did not previously exist.”

“The proposal results in an additional bedroom taking the current host dwelling from 3 bedrooms to a 4-bedroom property. The Thurrock Council Parking Standards indicate that three off street parking spaces would be required for a four-bedroom dwelling in this instance…”

Officer report

Public views

Neighbour notifications and a site notice generated no responses, while the applicant referred to similar nearby approvals.

“Neighbouring notifications letters were sent to nearby properties and a site notice was erected in front of the application site. This generated no responses.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A speaker provided a statement, and a ward councillor also provided a statement.

Members’ discussion

Members discussed Green Belt status, nearby approvals, the lack of objections and whether the proposal was out of character.

“Members sought further clarification on whether the application was considered ‘Grey Belt’. It was confirmed the application is not considered grey belt under the current rules and is considered Green Belt.”

“Members sought clarity on whether the application was out of character with the rest of the street. It was confirmed that it was not however the recommendation is still to refuse on principle of it being on the Green Belt and the size as opposed to the design impact in the locality.”

Minutes