Two storey rear extension and internal alterations

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 16 April 2026 by J Bell-Williamson MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date:06 May 2026 Appeal Ref: 6005360 22 Crown Avenue, Basildon, Essex SS13 2BE • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Kym Van-Rhyn against the decision of Basildon Borough Council. • The application Ref is 25/01099/FULL. • The development proposed is two storey rear extension and internal alterations. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a two storey rear extension and internal alterations at 22 Crown Avenue, Basildon, Essex SS13 2BE. The permission is granted in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 25/01099/FULL, dated 11 August 2025, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: ground floor plan, first floor plan and image of proposed rear elevation. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. Preliminary Matters 2. The Council indicates that it took account of amended plans that show the depth of the upper floor set back from the ground floor by 0.5 metres. I have determined the appeal on the basis of the same amended plans taken into account by the Council. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed extension on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 23 Crown Avenue, with regard to outlook, sunlight and daylight. Reasons 4. The appeal property is a two storey mid-terrace dwelling in a residential road of mixed property types. The surrounding area is residential in character. Appeal Decision 6005360 2 5. The appeal property is the middle dwelling of a short terrace of three properties. To the rear, No 21 is some three metres forward of the building line of the appeal property. The proposed rear extension will, therefore, replicate this relationship between the appeal property and No 23 to the other side. The upper floor will, however, be set back as already indicated. Given that the layout of rooms is similar between the properties, it was possible at the inspection to assess the likely effects on No 23’s occupiers from the current layout of No 21 and the appeal property. 6. The first floor of No 23 includes high level windows, the nearest of which serves a bathroom and includes obscured glass. Despite its proximity to this window, the limited depth of the extension means that the amount of natural light reaching the bathroom will not be harmfully compromised. The other high level window is set further away from the extension so there will be no harm to light levels in the room served by it. Due to the height of the window combined with the extension’s limited depth, the outlook from it will be unaffected. 7. The nearest window in No 23 at ground level serves a kitchen, which is the same layout in the appeal property. From my observations inside No 22, the depth of the neighbouring dwelling does not harmfully affect the light level in this room and direct views are towards the garden. Moreover, while the extended dwelling is visible it is not a dominant or oppressive feature in views from the window. The same will be the case for views from No 23’s nearest window. The other opening is a patio door which, due to the distance from the extension, will be not be affected by the extension. Given its limited depth and bulk, the extension will not harmfully affect the use and enjoyment of the neighbouring garden. 8. 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 23 Crown Avenue, 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. Conclusion and Conditions 9. For the reasons given above, the appeal should succeed. I have imposed the standard time condition and, to ensure the proper implementation of the proposal, one requiring development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans. A condition requiring external materials to match those of the existing dwelling is also necessary in the interests of the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. J Bell-Williamson INSPECTOR