ONE of two adjacent terraced homes in Grays that formed battlegrounds for planning applications may be subject to the work of a demolition team after planning inspectors backed a Thurrock Council enforcement action.

Numbers one and three Oak Road in Grays have been subject to a number of contentious planning applications over recent years as their respective owners sdought to extend them.

The owner of one, last year lost a fight to create a second dwelling by way of an extension to his exisiting property extension after a planning inspector dismissed an appeal against Thurrock Council refusal.

The 'battle' over the extension has raged for several years and involved two rejected proposals

The homeowner Kashif Bhatt appealed to the Planning Inspectorate after the second rejection but the higher authority upheld the council's notice in full.

Kashif Bhatt's hopes to create a new dwelling in his garden fell on deaf ears twice.

The first application was rejected in 2023 and a second was turned down in May last year.

And the next door property has been subject to a planning appeal by applicant Saleem Malik - who may now have to tear down an extension that was built with approval.

advertisement

That follows another planning appeal in which the inspector rejected multiple grounds of appeal, including the argument that Thurrock Council's notice had not been properly served, and ruled that the development did not comply with planning rules.

In dismissing the appeal the inspector made clear that developers cannot rely on "partial compliance" to justify unauthorised works. Because the extension exceeded the limits set out under permitted development rights, the council was entitled to require the entire structure to be removed.

The inspector also ruled the extension was not immune from enforcement action at the time the notice was issued.

The properties are side-by-side on Oak Road.

A previous attempt by the homeowner to secure retrospective planning permission was refused by Thurrock Council in 2022. A second application, proposing changes to the roof of the extension, was also rejected.

In considering the appeal under the inspector agreed with the council's original reasoning that the extension harmed the living conditions of the neighbouring property and negatively affected the character and appearance of the terrace, even though it can barely be seen from the rear alley of the terrace and not at all from any otherr viewpoint.

As a result, the appeal was dismissed and the enforcement notice — requiring the unlawful extension to be removed — remains in place.