THURROCK Council has been backed and overruled in equal measure when verdicts on two planning appeals were delivered.

In one decision a property owner has been granted permission to build a large extension after successfully overturning a council refusal - but in another, a bungalow build has been rejected.

The owner of 22 Medlar Road, Grays applied for a single-storey wraparound side and rear extension, but the plan was rejected in June. Planning officers argued the extension's "excessive depth" would create an "overbearing and enclosing form harmful to the amenities" of a neighbouring property.

However, following an appeal, a planning inspector disagreed and approved the scheme. The inspector said the main issue was the impact on the living conditions of number 24, particularly its outlook.

In the decision, the inspector acknowledged the extension would introduce a "substantial flank wall" along the shared boundary but concluded it would not harm the neighbour's living conditions.

"The existing windows at number 24 – one in the kitchen and one in the living room – would ensure adequate levels of natural light and outlook," the inspector said.

The kitchen window faces the street, while the living room's patio doors are set far enough from the boundary to preserve an acceptable outlook.

The approved extension will extend 4 metres in depth along the boundary, with an overall width of eight metres and a rear projection of five metres from the existing garage. It will feature a flat roof, incorporating a roof lantern.

The design aims to infill the gap between the garage and the main dwelling, creating additional living space including two bedrooms, a larger kitchen/dining area, a bathroom, and a utility room. The extension will not be visible from the street and is considered to have no impact the character or appearance of the area.

However, a bid to build a one-bedroom bungalow behind a property in Grays has been thrown out after the inspectorate ruled it would harm the character of the area.

The property on Hathaway Road.

A proposal, submitted for land at the rear of 50 Hathaway Road, included creating a new dwelling with parking and vehicle access from Fairfax Road. Thurrock Council refused the scheme in January, saying it would create 'two uncharacteristically small plots' and fail to respect the setting of the site.

The developer appealed, but the Planning Inspectorate dismissed the case, citing design and layout issues. In its decision, the inspector said: "The proposed dwelling would have a shallow-pitched zinc roof, and the walls would comprise a mix of render and brick. It would present a blank façade to Fairfax Road and the Dell Road frontage would essentially comprise a brick wall and a car parking space.

There would be very limited space for planting or boundary treatment to create appropriate defensible space."

The inspector concluded the scheme would "exacerbate the poor characteristics of this portion of Dell Road" and have an unacceptable effect on the area's appearance, breaching local planning policies and national guidelines.

While the inspector accepted the bungalow would not create an overly cramped form of development, concerns about amenity space and future garden alterations were noted. The council had argued the design bore "little or no relationship to the surrounding development."

Residents also raised objections, warning the plan would worsen parking problems. Judith Langridge, of Hathaway Road, said: "From Orsett Road to Russell Road we only have one side of the road available at any time with double yellow lines on the opposite side. During peak times it is very difficult to find a parking space and often impossible."

Ann Worsfold, who has lived nearby for nearly five decades, added: "Parking is difficult for residents, especially evenings and weekends. Dell Road is a narrow thoroughfare and very dark. My husband is 78 and I am 76 – the stress will be harmful to us."