Two storey and single storey side extensions, with single storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 14 April 2026 by E Clifford BA (Hons) MA Decision by L McKay MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 02 July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6006364 81 Chapel Street, Billericay, Essex CM12 9LR • 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 Mr L Shayler against the decision of Basildon Borough Council. • The application Ref is 24/01379/FULL. • The development proposed is two storey and single storey side extensions, with single storey rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal Procedure 2. The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. Preliminary Matters 3. The appellant submitted revised drawings during the application process. It is clear from the Council’s report that these drawings were considered prior to their determination of the application and therefore there would be no prejudice to any party by my considering the amended plans. Main Issue 4. The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the area, including any Buildings of Townscape Merit, and whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Billericay Conservation Area; and • the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers, having particular regard to outlook. Reasons for the Recommendation Character and Appearance 5. When considering this appeal, I am required by Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area. The Billericay Conservation Area (BCA) was first designated in 1969, with the boundaries having since been extended. The BCA derives Appeal Decision 6006364 2 considerable significance from the survival of the medieval street layout and historic buildings from different periods of the development of the town. It has been suggested that the extension of the BCA to include Chapel Street may have been to resist gradual deterioration of this area, rather than due to the character and appearance of the street itself. However, even if this were the case, then remaining traditional forms of historic built form within the BCA make an important contribution to the BCA despite being set amongst more modern developments. 6. The appeal site is part of a row of three pairs of semi-detached Edwardian villas which share distinctive common architectural detailing and materiality typical of their era, such as square bay windows, distinctive fish scale tiles and diapered brickwork. The appeal site also has a later single storey garage attached at the side. This group stands out in the varied street scene, which includes a modern apartment block on one side of the appeal site and two earlier detached properties opposite 7. Whilst the semi-detached pair and the wider row are not identical, nor exactly symmetrical, the overall level of cohesion in their collective design and survival contributes positively to the wider street scene and the significance of the BCA. Indeed, the properties are included as Buildings of Townscape Value in the Billericay Conservation Area Character Appraisal (2011) and identified as non- designated heritage assets. The appeal property shares these architectural characteristics and contributes positively to the BCA both individually and as part of this group, despite the unusual placement and relatively poor condition of the existing garage. 8. The Billericay Conservation Area Management Plan (2011) (CMP) confirms that where new development is proposed, it is good practice to slightly recess or set back the walls of the extension to ensure that the original building remains legible. The proposed development would adhere to this guidance, with the proposed development set back from the front elevation of the appeal building, allowing for legibility of the original Edwardian building lines. It also proposes the use of matching materials which would further align with the aims of the CMP. 9. Furthermore, the restrained roofline of the proposed side extension would ensure that the current structure retains its visual primacy within the street scene, and it would not therefore compete for dominance with the main dwelling. 10. Any sense of preservation of the architectural integrity of the semi-detached pair would however be somewhat undermined by the inclusion of a second front entrance to the principal elevation, which would serve to elevate its prominence within the street scene. The resulting appearance would be more akin to a separate dwelling rather than a subservient and proportionate extension and would thus have a harmful terracing effect. Furthermore, this would reduce the overarching and pleasant degree of symmetry experienced throughout the row of houses and would cause harm to their significance as a distinctive group. 11. The scheme also proposes the rebuilding of the garage on roughly the same footprint, albeit set slightly further forward in the appeal plot to align with the projection of the bay window. Whilst in isolation, this change would have a very limited effect on the streetscene and the appearance of the CA, when read in conjunction with the remainder of the proposed scheme it would serve to exacerbate the issues identified above. In particular, it would highlight the undue Appeal Decision 6006364 3 prominence afforded to the proposed extension and would fail to observe the degree of symmetry otherwise afforded to the row. 12. I note that there is an element of historic evolution and resulting architectural variety in the surrounding built environment, including extensions at other properties within the terrace and replacement buildings. However, I have not been provided with the exact circumstances in which these alterations have taken place, including any planning permission granted. Regardless, the existing alterations which exist within the streetscape are not directly comparable to the appeal proposal in their siting, scale and form, and do not justify the harm of the proposed development. 13. The rear elements of the proposed development would significantly add to the scale and massing of the appeal dwelling. However, this would be appreciated from limited private views from the rear gardens of neighbouring properties, and further, would be viewed in the context of the other large extensions that have been undertaken at other properties within the terrace. The modern neighbouring property, Chapel Heights, is also of considerable scale and bulk. This element of the proposed development would assimilate well into this context and would not therefore, in itself, harm the character and appearance of the area. 14. Nevertheless, for the reasons set out above the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area, including but not limited to any Buildings of Townscape Value. It would furthermore fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Billericay Conservation Area. 15. Given the scale and nature of the proposal, the harm to the significance of the BCA as a whole and the host property as a non-designated heritage asset would be at the lower end of less than substantial having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) (the Framework). Nevertheless, the harm to the heritage assets is a matter of considerable importance and weight. The Framework requires that this harm should be weighed against any public benefits deriving from the proposal. 16. The appellant refers to reinstating a front boundary treatment, which would potentially be an enhancement to the BCA by providing a sense of enclosure that has been lost on this site, a matter noted within the BCACA. However, there are no plans or details before me of this feature, other than an image in a supporting document. I cannot therefore assess its impact fully. Nor can I be certain that it could be built without the need for planning permission, so it would not be appropriate to secure it by planning condition. I can therefore give this very limited weight as a potential public benefit of the scheme. 17. The appeal scheme would involve bringing the host building back into occupancy, which could represent an enhancement of the townscape and BCA and heritage investment and would make reference to the host building’s Edwardian character. It would also make use of an existing structure in an urban location in line with the aims of the NPPF to deliver sustainable development. The proposal would also result in an improvement in energy efficiency; however this has not been quantified. These would be public benefits; however their small scale means they carry limited weight. 18. The appellant contends that the design proposed would result in public benefits in terms of architectural coherence. However, for the reasons above the proposal Appeal Decision 6006364 4 would harm the appearance of the BCA, despite its positive intentions. The design would not therefore be a public benefit of the scheme. 19. The public benefits of the scheme would not therefore outweigh the harm that would be caused to the significance of the host building and the BCA. Accordingly, it would fail to comply with Saved Policy BAS BE12 of the Basildon District Local Plan Saved Policies (2007) (LP) which states that planning permission if the development causes material harm to the character of the surrounding areas, amongst other things. It further fails to accord with the guidance of the BCACA and CMP, which together set out the principles of development having regard to the preservation and enhancement of heritage assets. Living Conditions 20. The neighbouring apartment block, Chapel Heights, has windows on its flank elevation facing the appeal site on both the ground and first floor. The Council has stated that these serve habitable rooms, whilst the appellant contends that they do not. A representation from an occupier of the ground-floor flat has confirmed that the ground floor windows serve a kitchen and bathroom. I saw on site that they do not appear to have obscured glazing. Whilst I acknowledge that a bathroom is not a habitable room, kitchens may be, depending on their layout and function in relation to other living space. There is nothing before me to determine the internal layout of these flats, whether the kitchen benefits from another window, or what other spaces may be served by the kitchen window. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I have therefore adopted a precautionary approach in the interests of the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers, namely that the kitchen window does serve a habitable space. 21. These ground floor windows currently have a reasonably spacious outlook towards the side and rear of No 81. The existing garage on the appeal site does not extend far enough rearwards to block any light to the windows, although it restricts outlook in one direction. There is a reasonable distance between the windows and the main built form of No 81 such that there is some outlook directly in front of the windows. The first-floor windows similarly have an acceptable outlook under the current layout. 22. I acknowledge that the space between the appeal site and Chapel Heights is not currently open space, as it is partially occupied by the single storey garage. However, the submitted drawings show that the proposed replacement garage would extend significantly beyond the existing building. This would result in a significantly reduced outlook from the ground floor windows of the flank elevation of Chapel Heights, creating a noticeably more enclosed and overbearing aspect. Given the single storey nature of the proposed garage, it would not have a significant impact on the first-floor windows as a generous outlook would be retained above the ridgeline. 23. Furthermore, the addition of the two-storey side extension would bring the significantly increased bulk of the resultant dwelling much closer to Chapel Heights, and the rear building lines of both properties would be set very close together. This would severely limit the outlook from all of the flank windows of Chapel Heights. The resultant extensive built form of the appeal site would appear domineering and oppressive when experienced from the windows on both floors, exacerbated by the Appeal Decision 6006364 5 blank nature of the proposed brick walls. Consequently, it would harm the living conditions of the occupiers of the facing flats in Chapel Heights in terms of outlook. 24. The Council has not raised any concerns regarding the effect of the proposed development on day/sunlight, and the appellant has submitted a Sun Analysis and Massing document which confirms that the proposed scheme would be acceptable in this regard. Nevertheless, this does not justify the harm to outlook. 25. Overall, I conclude that the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of Chapel Heights with regard to outlook. It is therefore contrary to Saved Policy BAS BE12 of the LP which states that planning permission will be refused if it causes material harm including, but not limited to, overdominance of neighbouring dwellings. It would further fail to achieve the high standard of amenity required by the Framework. Planning Balance and Conclusion 26. The proposal would provide additional accommodation for its occupiers, and it is suggested that the revised layout, in particular the new front door, would benefit the day-to-day use of the property. However, these benefits would be essentially private in nature, and therefore I attribute only limited weight to them. 27. I find therefore overall that there are no benefits or other material considerations arising from the proposal of sufficient weight to justify granting permission for development which conflicts with the development plan. Recommendation 28. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. E Clifford APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 29. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. L McKay INSPECTOR