Basildon Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over area character and appearance in Basildon?
Learn which local design details inspectors treated as harmful or acceptable in selected Basildon appeals.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 70 of 104
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 27
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 43
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 67
- of 72 matched records
AI-assisted. Cited sources and wording were checked before publication. Based on 5 source-linked examples shown below. Review method and limits.
Planning Data area point: Basildon LPA (51.590141, 0.466303). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Basildon Borough Council appeal findings
Dormers, upper floors and extensions in Basildon streets
The selected examples include both outcomes, but one allowed decision gives only a conclusion, not the supporting analysis.
Counted against appeals
Basildon extensions that harmed the streetscene
Height, width, bulk and design
Their combined effect was found unacceptable for the surrounding area's character and appearance.
First-floor bulk at a corner
A large upper floor appeared out of keeping beside bungalows and chalet-style homes, with harm visible from public roads.
An incongruous streetscene addition
The Inspector concluded that this proposal would harm the area's character and appearance.
Helped or needed
Rear dormer details that limited harm
Rear position and matching finish
The dormer's rear position limited its visual effect, and its flat roof and material finish reflected local dormer additions.
Existing rear development framed views
The proposal was seen alongside an existing enlargement and rear development at neighbouring properties, which limited overall harm.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify height, width, bulk or design?
- Will an upper floor look oversized beside lower nearby homes?
- Are rear views limited and the roof finish similar to nearby dormers?
One allowed extract gives only a conclusion, and all selected examples concern extensions. These decisions do not predict another result.
Appeal evidence examples
Compare allowed and dismissed appeal reasoning
Each example separates the development, the Inspector-stated issue that selected it, and the reasoning from the decision. Compare the facts as well as the outcome: these examples do not predict how a different proposal would be decided.
Allowed appeal examples
2 examples
23 March 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
the construction of a rear roof dormer extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The visual effect of the enlarged dormer in views from [address] would be limited due to the discreet position to the rear of the dwelling. Nevertheless, the scale of the development would be appreciable in views from the rear of properties in the locality and in glimpsed views from [address]. Although large, the flat roof and material finish would reflect that of the existing dormer and other dormer additions in the locality. Moreover, the proposal would be viewed within the context of the existing enlargement and development to the rear of neighbouring properties. Consequently, the level of harm to the overall character and appearance of the area would be limited.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
28 October 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘single storey rear extension, garage side extension and conversion of existing roof’.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
On the main issue it is therefore concluded the proposed development would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Thus, it would be consistent with the objectives of saved Policy BAS BE12 of the Basildon District Local Plan (2007), which requires extensions to existing dwellings to not materially harm the character of the surrounding area, including the street scene.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
28 April 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
render existing brickwork and add second storey to create 2no. 3 bedroom flats with private balconies, associated parking, cycle stores & refuse store.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
In conclusion, the proposal would be an incongruous addition to the streetscene which would harm the character and appearance of the area. Therefore, it would not be in accordance with Policy BAS BE12 of the Basildon District Local Plan Saved Policies (2007), which seeks to prevent harm to the character of the surrounding area, including the streetscene.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 2
1 November 2021 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the erection of ground and first floor extensions and internal alterations.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Due to its height, width, bulk and design I conclude that the proposal would have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. It therefore fails to accord with Policy BAS BE12 of the Basildon District Local Plan Saved Policies (2007). This states that planning permission for the alteration and extension of existing dwellings, will be refused if it causes material harm to, amongst other matters, the character of the surrounding area. There is also conflict with the Framework which states that the creation of high quality, beautiful and sustainable buildings and places is fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
25 January 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a first floor extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue raised in respect of the appeal is the effect of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The resulting development would be of substantial size with regard to its height and overall bulk. The depth of the development would create a substantial mass of development alongside [address] visible from both [address] and [address]. The proposed first floor extension would be a disproportionately large addition that would appear substantially out of keeping within the context of bungalows and chalet style dwellings along this part of [address]. The upward first floor extension would detract from the character and appearance of the street scene and would, therefore, be visually harmful for this reason. Given the corner location of the site, the visual harm arising from such a disproportionately large addition would be clearly visible in public views from the adjacent highways and in the outlook of neighbouring existing occupiers.
Paragraph 5 · Source pages 1, 2