Appeal 3301915
Public case and site metadata stored from the official casework database, including fields that were empty in the source release.
A clearer next step
See how Inspectors approached issues like yours
Bring your planning decision into a private workspace. We separate the disputed points, then match them with source-located Inspector reasoning from similar appeals.
- See which issues the decision appears to turn on
- Compare the facts and open the full appeal records
One private comparison
How the refusal review worksOne-off service · No subscription
Similar appeals are evidence to inspect, not a prediction of your outcome.
Official decision document
The decision, section by section
4 sections
Read the development description and the Inspector’s text from the official decision PDF in source order. Source headings are retained where available. Personal and contact details are removed by an automated privacy filter; this is source material, not Rules for You analysis.
Section 01
Development description
a rear flat roof extension for additional space.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
[name]
I consider the main issues to be the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal dwelling is a detached modern dwelling located on a corner position in a modern estate of dwellings of coherent modern design. As such, there is a defined cohesiveness to the character and appearance of the surrounding area with regard to the scale, materials and layout of this estate.
The single-storey flat roof rear extension has been constructed. The roof slopes between approximately 2.1 to 2.5 metres in height. It covers a significant area of the rear garden within the boundary wall and is higher than that wall. It is clad in materials which are similar to those on part of the front first floor elevation. No other extensions of similar scale and design are in the vicinity.
The top of the development is clearly visible within the streetscene. Due to its scale and design, I consider it appears as a cramped form of development which has a poor relationship to the design and scale of the host dwelling. As such, the development appears as an incongruous addition, not in keeping with the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area.
In reaching my conclusion, I have had regard to all matters raised. The extension protrudes forward of the side elevation on this corner site and thus permitted development rights do not apply. [name] cannot be granted for a development that has already been carried out. Thus, I do not consider either of these to be fallback positions.
For the reasons stated above, I conclude that the development has an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. Thus, the development is contrary to Saved Policy BAS BE12 in the Basildon Local Plan Saved Policies (2007), particularly where it seeks to ensure that development does not harm the character of the surrounding area. I consider this policy to be broadly consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework, especially where the Framework seeks to ensure good design.
Planning inspector and document dates
The official casework attribution is grouped under a one-way keyed hash and shown only by its local identifier. Decision-letter dates and page references are extracted by fixed first-page rules and checked against that authoritative record.
Appeal Decision
- Extracted inspector · page 1
- Inspector attribution ID 1172No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 10 October 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 4 October 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3301915
- Application reference
- 22/00202/FULL
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Basildon District Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000066
Casework details
The casework, procedure, development and linking details supplied by the official record.
- Casework type
- Householder (HAS)
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development type
- Householder developments
- Appeal type reason
- 1. Refused planning permission
- Appeal reason
- Refusal
- Type detail
- Planning Appeals - Full
- Jurisdiction
- Transferred
- Link status
- Not Linked
Site and development
Published appeal-site measurements and planning designations, without the withheld precise location fields.
- Site area
- Not recorded
- Floor space
- Not recorded
- Number of residences
- 1
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- No
- Affects setting of a listed building
- Not recorded
- Historic building grant made
- Not recorded
- Relates to a conservation area
- Not recorded
- Flooding is an issue
- Not recorded
- Site within an AONB
- Not recorded
- Site within an SSSI
- Not recorded
Decision and dates
The published outcome and every imported case date.
- Official decision
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 26 June 2022
- Valid date
- 26 June 2022
- Start date
- 7 July 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 11 April 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 10 October 2022
Case administration
Published recovery, call-in, costs and enforcement information for this case.
- Redetermined
- No
- Bespoke
- No
- Date recovered
- Not recorded
- Date not recovered or derecovered
- Not recorded
- Call-in date
- Not recorded
- Costs applied for
- Not recorded
- Enforcement grounds count
- Not recorded
- Enforcement grounds
- Not recorded
Source and catalogue history
When this record appeared in the rolling official release and when the catalogue stored it.
- Source
- Planning Inspectorate casework database
- Source data system
- Horizon
- Dataset status
- Current release
- Catalogue record ID
- 21755
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:26
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21