Basildon Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over Green Belt harm in Basildon?
See how selected appeals described Green Belt openness harm and the gap in the allowed extract.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 29 of 104
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 7
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 22
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 23
- of 29 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
Basildon Green Belt openness and claimed benefits
The selected examples include an allowed appeal, but its extract gives only a conclusion, not the reason for the allowed outcome; the displayed outcome mix differs from the matched local set.
Counted against appeals
Why Green Belt openness was harmed
Extension size reduced openness
A rear extension's size and scale reduced openness despite limited public visibility.
Glimpse views exposed bulk
Screening hid much of another rear extension, but views above boundaries exposed flank walls and roof slopes.
Claimed benefits carried limited weight
A lawful development certificate and other considerations did not clearly outweigh substantial Green Belt harm.
Helped or needed
What the allowed Green Belt extract omits
No stated reason for allowance
The extract concludes the roof proposal harmed Green Belt openness, but does not say what led to the allowed outcome.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify spatial loss of Green Belt openness?
- Could roof slopes or flank walls create visible openness harm?
- Which claimed benefits does the refusal say outweigh Green Belt harm?
The sole allowed extract records Green Belt harm but not the reasoning behind its outcome. 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
1 example
20 January 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
alterations to roof including increase to the ridge height to create first floor and with roof window to side elevation.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework and any relevant development plan policies; • the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; and, • Whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
The proposal would not comply with exceptions c) or g) within paragraph 154 of the Framework. Therefore, I conclude that the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework and any relevant development plan policies. It would also have a harmful effect on the openness of the Green Belt. The proposal would be contrary to saved LP Policy GB4 and paragraph 154 of the Framework. I ascribe substantial weight to this harm.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
17 April 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the erection of three dormer bungalows with associated private amenity space and parking in lieu of existing stable building, hardstanding and manège.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in this appeal are: • whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and relevant development plan policies; and • whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The Framework indicates that inappropriate development in the Green Belt should not be approved except in very special circumstances. There would also be substantial harm to openness. Substantial weight should be given to the harm caused to the Green Belt, and very special circumstances will not exist unless the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm are clearly outweighed by other considerations.
Paragraph 22 · Source page 4
9 February 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a ground floor rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in the appeal are: • Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the revised National Planning Policy Framework (the ‘Framework’) and relevant development plan policies; • The effect on the openness of the Green Belt; and • Would the harm by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm, be clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Due to the positioning of the extension to the rear of the dwelling, the proposal would have limited visibility from the public realm and therefore limited visual impact on the openness of the Green Belt. However, the size and scale of the extension would be substantial and would result in an adverse spatial impact on the openness of the Green Belt, in that it would be reduced. Whilst the loss of openness would be localised, it would still result in moderate harm to the Green Belt. 1 BAS/1365/90 2 14/01155/FUL
Paragraph 12 · Source page 2
2 April 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in this appeal are: • Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework and any relevant development plan policies. • The effect of the proposed development on the openness of the Green Belt. • If the proposal is inappropriate development, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
In spatial terms, the proposed extension would represent a modest loss of openness in the Green Belt and would be larger than the conservatory it would replace. Visually, the bulk of the proposed extension would mostly be screened in public views by the existing dwelling, nearby buildings and boundary treatments. However, glimpse views of parts of the flank walls and roof slopes of the proposed extension would be possible above the boundary treatments of nearby properties, including across the side garden of Oakmead, which sits at a lower level. In these views the depth and massing of the flank walls would be apparent and would result in a noticeable loss of openness in the visual dimension, albeit to a relatively modest and localised extent. For these reasons, I conclude on this issue that the proposed extension would result in a harmful loss of openness in the Green Belt in both spatial and visual terms.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
17 January 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a detached swimming pool.
Issue identified by the Inspector
whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework and any relevant development plan policies;
Paragraph 1 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The Framework establishes that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt. When taken cumulatively the other considerations advanced in support of the scheme, including the existence of the Lawful Development Certificate, attract limited weight and this is not sufficient to clearly outweigh the substantial harm to the Green Belt. Consequently, the very special circumstances that are necessary to justify inappropriate development in the Green Belt do not exist and the proposal would fail to comply with the provisions of the Framework.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 3