Braintree District Council appeal evidence
Refused over character and appearance in Braintree?
Compare the selected examples on extensions, garages and fencing with the points in 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
- 57 of 85
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 25
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 32
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 47
- of 57 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: Braintree LPA (51.941953, 0.589916). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Braintree District Council appeal findings
Braintree extensions and fencing in street scenes
The selected examples sometimes give only the Inspector’s conclusion, so they show the result but not the design analysis behind it.
Counted against appeals
Extensions that harmed the home and area
Siting, bulk and form
The Inspector concluded the alteration harmed the area and conflicted with a requirement for compatible siting, bulk and form.
Not subordinate to the original dwelling
The Inspector concluded the extension harmed the host dwelling and area, contrary to policies seeking good design and subordination to the original dwelling.
Helped or needed
Open frontages and subordinate garages
Kept the street frontage open
The fencing retained the open-plan frontage. Though it narrowed views at the junction, the Inspector found no unreasonable sense of enclosure.
Stayed subordinate to the house
The detached garage was found compatible with and subordinate to the existing house, without over-development from cumulative extensions and outbuildings.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal mention siting, bulk, form or subordination to the original dwelling?
- Would the proposal close an open frontage or create street enclosure?
- Are comparable nearby fences or extensions relevant to your design?
The selected examples in Braintree cover garages, a dormer, fencing and extensions, not every proposal type. 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
3 January 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
block built detached garage to the side, within the boundary fence adjacent to [address], clad externally to match existing house.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The Council’s refusal notice referenced conflict with three policies of the Braintree District Local Plan 2013-2033. For the reasons I have given, the proposal would be without material adverse detriment to the existing character of the settlement, thus complying with Policy LPP 1. The proposal would not amount to over-development, taking account of the cumulative impact of extensions and outbuildings on the original character of the property and its surroundings, and be both compatible with and subordinate to the existing house, in accordance with Policy LLP 36. The proposal would not detract from the character and appearance of this residential area and satisfy all relevant criteria of Policy LPP 52, in respect of the layout and design of development.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
22 May 2024 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
dormer extension to front.
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
Accordingly, the proposed development would have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area. The scheme therefore accords with policies LPP36, LPP47 and LPP52 of the Braintree District Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework. Amongst other things, these provide criteria for proposals for residential alterations and extensions, promote a high standard of design and layout, and seek that local context is respected.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 2
19 January 2022 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
the erection of fencing to side and rear garden.
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
The appeal proposal would maintain the open plan frontage of the appeal site. This would remain in harmony with the wider area. The enclosure of the side/rear garden would undeniably change the appearance of the site and the road junction. However, although the vista along [address], when looking in both directions, would be less expansive than the existing, there would be no unreasonable sense of enclosure to the street scene. The result would merely reflect circumstances that are prevalent in comparable situations in the locality. Overall, I am satisfied that there would be no harmful impact upon the character or appearance of the area. As such, I find no conflict with Policy RLP90 of the Braintree District Local Plan Review (LPR), [name] 2005, or the emerging Policy LPP55 of the Section 2 - Publication Draft Local Plan June 2017 (Section 2 Plan) insofar as they require the layout and design of development to be of a high standard that reflects local distinctiveness and harmonises with the surrounding area, or with the similar aims of Section 2 Plan emerging Policy LPP50 as it relates to the built environment. Due to the nature of the proposal LPR Policy RLP25 and Section 2 Plan emerging Policy LPP43 are not directly relevant as they deal with garden extensions that relate to a material change of use of land.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
2 examples
19 July 2021 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
[name], and Alterations to [name].
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
In the light of the above, I conclude that the development would have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area. This would be contrary to the design aims of Saved Policy RLP17 which states when considering proposals for extensions to an existing house the siting, bulk and form should be compatible with the original dwelling.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 2
22 September 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
Part single, part-two storey side and rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and area in general.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and area in general. There is conflict with [name] 36, LPP 47 and LPP 52 of the Local Plan which amongst other things seek to ensure developments are of high standards of design, respect local context and for residential extensions to be subordinate to the original dwelling.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2