Braintree District Council appeal evidence
Refused over neighbours’ living conditions in Braintree?
See the neighbour effects raised in the selected examples and the allowed appeal’s conclusion.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 20 of 85
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 6
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 14
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 16
- of 20 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
Outlook, living space and privacy in Braintree
The selected examples lean more towards dismissed appeals than the matched local set, and some extracts give only conclusions.
Counted against appeals
Outlook, living space and future occupiers
Harm to outlook at No 69
The Inspector concluded that the proposal would harm the outlook of occupiers at No 69.
Cramped two-bedroom layout
The mobile home was described as cramped with two bedrooms. The Inspector accepted reorganisation could meet the space standard as a one-person unit.
Harm to future occupiers
The Inspector concluded that the scheme would harm the living conditions of some future occupiers.
Helped or needed
Privacy and disturbance from an annexe
Privacy and disturbance at No 32
The Inspector concluded that the replacement garage and annexe would not unacceptably harm occupiers of 32 through privacy or disturbance.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify harm to a neighbour’s outlook?
- Does the proposal give enough space for its intended occupiers?
- Could a window overlooking a neighbour’s garden be permanently obscured?
Appeal 85972 concerns future occupiers rather than neighbours, so it sits at this page’s issue boundary. 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
4 March 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
garden room outbuilding and replacement garage with first floor annexe.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are (i) the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and area; and (ii) the effect of the replacement garage with first floor annexe on the living conditions of the occupiers of 32 [name] with particular regard to privacy and disturbance.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For these reasons, I conclude with particular regard to privacy and disturbance that the proposed replacement garage and annexe would not cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of occupiers of 32 [name]. Accordingly, I find no conflict with [name] 36 or LPP 52 of the Local Plan insofar as they broadly require no unacceptable adverse impact on the amenities of adjoining residential properties. Nor would the proposal be contrary to the Framework insofar as it includes a requirement for a high standard of amenity.
Paragraph 18 · Source page 4
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
23 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described in the application form as follows: “Permission sought for change of use of existing mobile home to permanent dwelling on land formerly part of N° [site address] Witham but now a separate plot with independant (sic) access”.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The first main issue to be determined in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surroundings. The second is the effect of the proposed development on the residential amenities of neighbours (whether unacceptable harm would be caused by disturbance or intrusion on privacy). The third is whether the scheme would provide satisfactory living conditions for occupiers of the mobile home.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Internally, the mobile home is somewhat cramped, with two-bedrooms, although it is suggested that one of these could be redesignated as a “Carer’s room/study”. I accept, however, that the interior could be reorganised to achieve compliance with the ‘Technical housing standards – nationally described space standard’ as a one-person unit. I also accept that the living room window that overlooks the rear garden of number 42 could be treated to ensure that it would be permanently obscured (having been covered by film in the meantime), subject to a planning
Paragraph 18 · Source page 3
5 May 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as erection of up to nine dwellings and associated work.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: i) the effect of the proposed development on character and appearance and living conditions having regard to the quantum of development proposed; ii) the effect of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the area, with particular regard to trees; and iii) whether the proposal would be capable of providing adequate drainage.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Concerns regarding the site layout and the impact of trees upon the living conditions of future occupiers of the dwellings would be a matter to be considered at the reserved matters stage when the site layout would be established. Moreover, in the absence of the layout and orientation of dwellings being determined at this stage the potential for pressure for tree removal by future occupiers cannot be assumed.
Paragraph 23 · Source page 4
16 March 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
‘demolition of existing buildings and the erection of 9 residential dwellings with associated access, landscaping and infrastructure’.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: i) whether or not the site would provide a suitable location for housing having regard to relevant development plan policies and its location in countryside; ii) whether or not living conditions for future occupiers of Plots 7, 8 and 9 would be acceptable with particular regard to light; iii) the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; iv) the effect of the proposal on protected species and priority habitat; v) whether or not the proposal would make adequate provision for waste storage and collection; vi) whether or not the proposal would make adequate provision for drainage; and vii) the effect of the proposal on European designated and Ramsar sites.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
I have found that the proposal would make adequate provision for drainage and would not harm the integrity of European designated and Ramsar sites. However, the site would not provide a suitable location for housing having regard to its location in countryside. There would be harm to living conditions for some occupiers of the development and harm to the character and appearance of the area. Furthermore, it has not been demonstrated that there would be adequate provision for waste storage and collection overall, nor that there would not be adverse effects on protected species and priority habitat. In these respects, the proposal would be contrary to [name] 7, LPP 1, LPP 35, LPP 52, LPP 64, LPP 66 and LPP 67 of the Local Plan.
Paragraph 55 · Source page 10
4 March 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
No verified development description was available for this example.
Issue identified by the Inspector
Having regard to the above, the main issues are the effect of the proposal on the: • living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to outlook; and • character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Concluding on this main issue, the proposal would harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to outlook for occupiers at No 69. This would conflict with relevant provisions of [name] 36 and LPP 52 of the Local Plan which, amongst other considerations, seek to avoid unacceptable adverse impacts on the amenities of adjoining residential properties, including overbearing impact. I attach significant weight to this policy conflict.
Paragraph 19 · Source page 3