# Monometer House, 128 Rectory Grove, Leigh-on-Sea (storage building on stilts over a car park) - **Decision:** dismissed, 2 October 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: B Johnson - **Authority:** Southend-on-Sea (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6009318 - **Application reference:** 26/00091/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Erection of an ancillary commercial storage building on stilts, with an external staircase, above retained surface parking - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DP3(1), DP3(2), S4(1) - **Development plan policies:** Southend-on-Sea Core Strategy 2007 KP2, CP4, Development Management Document 2015 DM1, DM3 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, living conditions of neighbours - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, design-refusal, living-conditions, e2-substantial-weight, l2-substantial-weight, heritage-no-harm, local-policy-consistency, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A timber-clad storage building raised on stilts over part of an office car park in Leigh-on-Sea, right beside a house. The inspector found it a prominent, alien feature that conflicted with DP3(1) and DP3(2) and would dominate the neighbour's outlook. E2 and L2(1)(b) each gave the scheme substantial weight, with moderate weight for an accessible location, but the adverse effects substantially outweighed the benefits. Dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "Annex A, Paragraph 1 states that this version of the Framework applies to decision-making from the day of its publication" (DL ¶4). - **Character, DP3(1) and DP3(2): CONFLICT.** "The proposal would be a prominent alien feature within this residential context due to its design, the raised level of the site and the jarring external materials (particularly the use of timber cladding)" (DL ¶8). "The proposal would not accord with Policies DP3(1) and DP3(2) of the Framework" (DL ¶10). - **Living conditions: CONFLICT.** "it would dominate the outlook from the front windows of No. 4 and give rise to a harmful sense of enclosure" (DL ¶13). - **Plan consistency.** The local policies "are consistent with the Framework" (DL ¶9). - **Benefits.** "This accords with Policy E2 of the Framework which states that substantial weight should be given to economic benefits of proposals for commercial development which allow businesses to invest, expand and/or adapt" (DL ¶16). "The location of the proposal would support sustainable patterns of movement and would limit the need to travel by private car, which accords with Policy TR3 of the Framework. I afford this benefit moderate weight" (DL ¶17). ## Planning balance S4(1) in substance, though the letter names only S3. "The adverse effects of the proposal substantially outweigh its benefits when assessed against the national decision-making policies in the Framework. Therefore, the presumption in favour of sustainable development established by Policy S3 of the Framework does not apply to this appeal" (DL ¶21). Two substantial-weight benefits (E2, L2(1)(b)) were outweighed by a DP3(1) and DP3(2) conflict and neighbour harm. The letter does not cite DP3(3) or S4(2)(c), and does not ask whether there is clear justification. ## What made the difference Siting. The building stood next to a house, on raised ground, forward and rearward of its building lines, so it read as part of the residential street and not the commercial site. The same benefits carried a cabin at Brightlingsea (PINS-6010933) the same day where no harm was found. ## Transferable points - E2 and L2(1)(b) substantial weight for a business extension over a car park did not survive a DP3(1) and DP3(2) conflict plus neighbour harm (DL ¶16, ¶21). - An accessible urban location was counted as a TR3 benefit of moderate weight (DL ¶17). - DP3(1) was applied to harm to a neighbour's outlook as well as to character (DL ¶15). - Design harm was weighed in the "substantially outweighed" balance without the DP3(3) refusal limb being named (DL ¶21). ## Policy findings - **DP3(1): conflict.** 4.8 m high building on stilts beside a house, eroding an open gap; "a prominent alien feature" in a residential context with jarring timber cladding; DP3(1) also cited for the harm to the neighbour's outlook (DL 6, 8-10, 15) - **DP3(2): conflict.** cited with DP3(1) for visually attractive, distinctive development and a coherent palette of materials (the identity principle) (DL 10) - **S4(1): fail.** S4 not named; "The adverse effects of the proposal substantially outweigh its benefits when assessed against the national decision-making policies"; presumption in S3 does not apply; DP3(3) and S4(2)(c) not cited (DL 21) - **E2: benefit (substantial weight).** on-site document storage helps an existing business operate efficiently and could support expansion and jobs; E2 substantial weight (DL 16) - **L2(1)(b): benefit (substantial weight).** better use of underutilised land "such as building on or above car parks" (DL 16) - **TR3: benefit (moderate weight).** location supports sustainable patterns of movement and limits the need to travel by car (DL 17) - **N2: benefit (limited weight).** green roof (DL 17) - **HE5(2): neutral.** mapped: site close to the Leigh Conservation Area; parties agree no harm to its setting; s72(1) noted (DL 18) - **Transitional(2): accord.** local design and amenity policies "are consistent with the Framework"; Annex A paragraph 2 not cited (DL 9, 14) ## Key facts - Building about 4.8 m high, staircase platform about 2.2 m; projects beyond the front and rear building lines of 4 Grange Road, on raised ground (DL 6) - Harm to the outlook from front and rear windows of No 4 and a sense of enclosure in its garden (DL 12-13) - Switch paragraph cites Annex A paragraph 1 - the Framework "applies to decision-making from the day of its publication" (DL 4) - Same inspector allowed PINS-6010933 on the same day, giving E2 and L2(1)(b) the same substantial weight where no harm was found ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009318 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/8eb643db-02cc-403c-966c-09f6a3b2e504 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009318.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. Source and data: https://github.com/planningdistilled/research.