Basildon Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over a neighbour’s living conditions in Basildon?
See selected local findings on neighbour harm and questions to test against your refusal notice.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 16 of 104
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 8
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 7
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 16
- of 16 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 outlook and daylight findings
The selected examples mostly provide conclusions, not detailed assessment behind them. One outcome from the matched local set is not displayed.
Counted against appeals
Basildon outlook and daylight harm
Significant outlook and daylight harm
The selected rear extension was concluded to cause significant harm to neighbours’ outlook and daylight.
Outlook harm was concluded
The selected extract concludes that the development harmed neighbours’ outlook. It gives no preceding analysis.
Helped or needed
Basildon extensions without neighbour harm
Side infill visually acceptable
The Inspector agreed the side infill was visually acceptable and would not harm adjacent occupiers’ living conditions.
No material outlook loss
The selected rear extension was concluded not to materially harm neighbours’ outlook, sunlight or daylight.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal notice identify outlook, daylight, sunlight or privacy harm?
- Does it explain how a neighbour’s rooms or garden would be affected?
- Does it show over-dominance rather than simply state harm?
Appeal 83959 also covers character and appearance. This review uses only its outlook conclusion. 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
3 examples
13 March 2024 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
single side extension and replace existing first floor window with new french doors.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] with particular reference to privacy.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
I concur with the Council that the proposed side infill extension is of a visually acceptable design and would not result in harm to the living conditions of any adjacent occupiers.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
6 May 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
two storey rear extension and internal alterations.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed extension on the living conditions of the occupiers of No [address], with regard to outlook, sunlight and daylight.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Accordingly, for these reasons, I conclude that the proposed extension would not have a materially harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No [address], with regard to outlook, sunlight and daylight. As such, there is no conflict with Policy BAS BE12 of the Basildon Local Plan Saved Policies (2007), which states that permission will be refused for development that causes material harm with regard to overlooking, overshadowing or over-dominance.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
10 March 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a detached garage.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect on the living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the reasons given, the proposal would not result in harm to the living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers. As such, it would not be in conflict with Saved Policy BAS BE12 of the Basildon District Local Plan Saved Policies (2007) and Paragraph 135(f) of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024). These seek, amongst other matters, to ensure that development does not cause harm through over-dominance or overshadowing to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
2 examples
10 March 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
proposed single storey flat roof rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of occupiers of [address], having particular regard to outlook and daylight.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore conclude that the development would result in significant harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], having particular regard to outlook and daylight.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
6 February 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
clearly visible above the existing boundary fence at No 26. Its height is exacerbated by the change in levels between the raised patio on the appeal site and the ground level at the neighbouring property. Although open sided on this side elevation, the partial parapet and raised elements within the roof, combined with the overall height, depth and proximity to the shared boundary, result in a dominant form of development when viewed from the rear garden of No 26.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the development on the: • character and appearance of the site and surrounding area; and • living conditions of the occupiers of [address] with particular regard to outlook.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
In light of the above, I conclude that the development would result in harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] with particular regard to outlook. This conflicts with saved Policy BAS BE12 of the BLP which states that, amongst other things, planning permission for new residential development, and for the alteration and extension of existing dwellings, will be refused if it causes material harm due to over-dominance.
Paragraph 13 · Source pages 2, 3