Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over area character and appearance in Basingstoke and Deane?
The selected local examples show which site facts to compare with 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
- 37 of 57
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 8
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 29
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 16
- of 37 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: Basingstoke and Deane LPA (51.273459, −1.20097). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council appeal findings
Siting, extensions and boundaries in Basingstoke and Deane
The selected examples show both outcomes but have a slightly different mix from the matched local set. The allowed extract concerns fencing after hedgerow loss.
Counted against appeals
Basingstoke and Deane siting objections
Carport siting outweighed acceptable materials
Traditional materials and no heritage harm did not overcome the carport’s harmful siting and overall presence.
Second-storey extension harmed character
The Inspector concluded that the second-storey front extension would harm the area’s character and appearance.
Fallback position carried limited weight
The Inspector found the front porch had a much more considerable impact, so gave the fallback position limited weight.
Helped or needed
Basingstoke and Deane boundary evidence
Earlier boundary enclosure
Evidence suggested that No 45 had some tall wooden boundary enclosure before the appeal enclosure was installed.
Shrubbery detail was limited
The Inspector had very limited details to judge the previous shrubbery’s contribution to the surrounding area’s character and appearance.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify harm from siting, overall presence or both?
- What evidence shows which boundary or planting stood there before?
- Does the refusal compare your proposal with a smaller permitted alternative?
Appeal 33832 gives only the conclusion on the extension, not the earlier visual assessment. 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
11 February 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
No verified development description was available for this example.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
It is put to me that the appeal fencing is not appropriate mitigation for the loss of the previous hedgerow. There are however very limited details before me in respect of that shrubbery to determine the extent of contribution it made to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Notwithstanding this, the evidence before me suggests that No 45 was not devoid of some tall wooden boundary enclosure prior to implementation of the appeal enclosure.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
12 June 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a second storey front 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 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Overall, the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. It would not accord with Policy EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 (2016) and the objectives of the Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document (2018) which seeks to ensure - amongst other matters - that residential extensions positively contribute to local distinctiveness, the sense of place and the existing street 1 Planning application reference 15/03740/HSE scene. It would also fail to conform with aims of the National Planning Policy Framework 2021 which seeks to achieve well designed places.
Paragraph 15 · Source pages 2, 3
13 December 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
erection of front porch to property with gable roof and steps leading to driveway.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I agree with their assessment, and that the development in this case has a much more considerable impact on the character and appearance of the area by comparison. Consequently, and altogether, I attribute the fallback position limited weight.
Paragraph 15 · Source page 2
21 May 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
Erection of a detached carport (on land allocated as driveway/parking forecourt to serve the new home under construction - planning approval ref. 20/00221/FUL).
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The site lies within the [site address] Conservation Area (CA), where development is expected to reflect prevailing form, scale, proportions, and the diversity of styles, materials, colours, and textures. The proposed use of traditional materials would broadly accord with these expectations and remain sympathetic to the wider context. Moreover, no objections have been raised by the [name], and the Council’s delegated report refers to the acceptability of the materials. Taking these factors together, I am not persuaded that the identified harm would be such as to detract from the overall significance of the CA. I therefore conclude that the proposal would preserve the special architectural and historic interest of the [site address] CA. However, the absence of harm in heritage terms does not outweigh the harm identified in respect of the character and appearance of the area arising from the siting, and overall presence of the structure.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
20 January 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
for the siting of a dog exercise paddock with access and parking, including the erection of fencing.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the appeal proposal upon the character and appearance of the area and within the wider landscape of which it forms part.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
On balance, I consider that the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area and would have a detrimental effect upon the local landscape, contrary to [name] EM1 and EM10 which together only permit development where it can be demonstrated that proposals are sympathetic to the character and visual quality of the area concerned and that they respect, enhance and not be detrimental to the character or visual amenity of the landscape likely to be affected; whilst positively contributing to local distinctiveness and the sense of place. I also find conflict between the proposal and BDLP Policy EP4 that whilst supporting the rural economy, by virtue of its siting would not be well designed, having localised detrimental landscape effects; along with Framework para. 187 b) which stipulates that planning decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by, inter alia, recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside.
Paragraph 19 · Source page 4