Rear extension and loft conversion at 41 Clarence Road, Grays

What was proposed

The application proposed a part single-storey, part two-storey rear extension and loft conversion with a rear dormer.

“The proposal is for part single, part two-storey rear extension and loft conversion with rear dormer.”

“The property is a terraced dwellinghouse in Grays which has recently had a Householder planning application for extensions to the dwelling and a Prior Notification application for larger rear extension granted. In addition, a proposed Lawful Development Certificate application seeking to change the use from C3 to C4 (6 person House of Multiple Occupation) including associated loft conversion and extension with rear dormers has been submitted and approved.”

Officer report

The site and setting

The property is a two-storey terraced dwelling in a mainly residential area of Grays, with access and views to the rear.

“The application site relates to 41 Clarence Road, a terraced two-storey property located within the residential area of Grays, on the edge of the town centre. The application site is accessible from the front and rear and as such, views are afforded to the rear of the application from public vantage. The property is rendered and has pitched and gabled roof.”

“The immediate surrounding area is predominantly residential in character and is consistently formed of two-storey terraced dwellings uniform in…”

Officer report

Earlier permissions

Earlier permissions covered a six-person HMO-related lawful development certificate, a two-storey rear extension and larger single-storey rear extensions.

“Proposed Prior Notification Application for Larger Rear Extension ref. 25/00767/PHA – Two, single storey rear extensions with depths of 6.00 metres from the original rear wall of the property, with a maximum height of 3.00 metres and eaves height of 3.00 metres - Approved 23.09.25”

“As the current application seeks to implement all of the above proposals (rather than just the development proposed under refs. 25/00775/HHA or 25/00767/PHA) additional planning permission is required. This is because the approved single‑storey (25/00767/PHA) and two‑storey (25/00775/HHA) rear extensions were each designed, attached directly to the rear of the host property.”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

Officers considered the proposal acceptable in design, neighbour amenity, parking, flooding and highway safety terms, subject to conditions.

“The proposed extensions, loft conversion and associated works at 41 Clarence Road is acceptable in principle.”

“The proposal, subject to conditions, would have an acceptable impact upon on the character and appearance of the locality, residential amenities of neighbouring properties, flooding and parking and highways safety. As such, the proposals would be in accordance with policies CSTP22, CSTP23, CSTP27, PMD1, PMD2, PMD8, PMD9 and PDM15 of the Core Strategy, the RAE and relevant paragraph of the NPPF.”

Officer report

Consultation and objections

Highways raised no objection, and no written comments were received from neighbouring properties or other interested parties.

“Neighbouring notifications letters were sent to nearby properties. No written comments have been received.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A ward councillor spoke against the application, while the agent spoke in support on behalf of the applicant.

Members’ questions

Members discussed whether the property could function as a family home, its garden play space, intended use, parking and traffic generation.

“Members queried whether the house could function as a family home and sought clarification on the location of the rear garden play space. It was confirmed that developers may or may not include garden space, as they typically prioritise maximising internal floor space and subsequently determine how much external space can be allocated.”

“Members were informed that in terms of traffic generation there were no significant difference in terms of a parking assessment from a planning perspective.”

Minutes

The vote

Councillors voted unanimously for an alternative motion to defer the application and seek clarification on intended use.

“Alternative motion to defer the application and seek clarification on intended use.”

“For (8): Councillors Fletcher,Sisterson, Cherry, Jones, Kelly, Liddiard, Panjala, Shinnick Against(0): Abstain (0):”

Minutes