Proposed single storey flat roof rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 4 March 2026 by Ian Dyer BSc (Eng) FCIHT an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 10th March 2026 Appeal Ref: 6003721 11 Laindon Road, Billericay, Essex CM12 9LL • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant approval required under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended). • The appeal is made by Mr and Mrs Beckwith against the decision of Basildon Borough Council. • The application Ref is 25/01537/PDPA. • The development proposed is proposed single storey flat roof rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. The provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 as amended, under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, Part A.4(7) require the local planning authority to assess the proposed development solely on the basis of its impact on the amenity of any adjoining premises, taking into account any representations received. My determination of this appeal has been made on the same basis. Main Issue 3. The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of occupiers of 9 Laindon Road, having particular regard to outlook and daylight. Reasons 4. 11 Laindon Road (No 11) is the southerly of a pair of semi-detached dwellings. The proposed extension would extend across most of the rear elevation and part of the garden. The garden has two levels. The lower level is paved and forms a patio whilst the upper level has a large pond, dry at the time of my visit, and, beyond that, a lawn and planting. Adjacent to the rear elevation, a brick wall forms the boundary with 9 Laindon Road (No 9), the partner in the semi-detached pair. Further away from the dwelling, this is replaced by a fence which, due to the change in levels is higher than the top of the wall, the transition being formed by a fence panel with a sloping top. 5. The rear face of No 9 lies flush with the rear of No 11 and contains a window at ground floor level close to the boundary wall between the two properties. The window appears to serve a habitable room. 6. The proposed rear extension would be a single storey high and would project a wall about 4.4 metres behind the existing dwelling very close to the boundary with Appeal Decision 6003721 2 No 9. The roof of the extension, whilst flat, would be significantly higher than the existing wall section. 7. Anyone in the garden of No 9 close to the rear wall, which is likely to provide the most convenient amenity space of the occupiers, or at the window closest to the boundary would experience an increased sense of enclosure from the new structure. Given the relationship of the window to the proposed extension this increased sense of enclosure would be significant. 8. The appellants have, within their Appeal Statement, provided an assessment of overshadowing of the garden and rear wall of No 9. From that assessment, there would be increased overshadowing of the rear window and the garden of No 9 closest to the dwelling, albeit that this would be over a restricted period of the day. There would, however, be a reduction in daylight reaching the window and the rear garden closest to the dwelling and I find that the level of reduction would be significant. 9. The appellants identify that the site lies within an urban area where neighbours must reasonably expect that adjoining properties may exercise permitted development rights. Whilst this may be the case, it is also reasonable that the safeguards set out by the Government to protect them from harm that would result from the exercise of such rights should be applied. 10. I therefore conclude that the development would result in significant harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of 9 Laindon Road, having particular regard to outlook and daylight. 11. The Council has referred to Policy BAS B12 of the Basildon District Local Plan Saved Policies (2007). The policy, amongst other things, seeks to ensure that development to alter or extend existing dwellings, will be refused if it causes material harm, including, amongst other things, from overshadowing or over- dominance. Whilst this prior approval appeal has not been determined on the basis of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, Policy BAS B12 is relevant to the planning judgement to be made. Conclusion 12. I have found that the proposed development would result in material harm to the amenity of neighbours and so, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Ian Dyer INSPECTOR