Adur District Council appeal evidence
Refused over neighbour living conditions in Adur?
See the recorded concerns and the privacy safeguard that supported an allowed local appeal.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 8 of 21
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 2
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 6
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 7
- of 8 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: Adur LPA (50.833403, −0.2883). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Adur District Council appeal findings
Privacy safeguards and neighbour disturbance in Adur
The displayed examples have a different outcome mix from the matched local set. Some dismissed extracts give only a conclusion or focus on another issue.
Counted against appeals
Houseboat proposal harmed named neighbours
Living-condition harm found
The Inspector concluded that the proposal would unacceptably harm the living conditions of occupiers at Nos 31, 33 and 35. The extract does not state the reasons.
Helped or needed
Privacy safeguards for side-facing windows
Control glazing and openings
A condition controlling side-facing window glazing and openings led the Inspector to find no overlooking or privacy harm to neighbours.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal say which neighbours would lose privacy?
- Does it identify noise or disturbance and who would experience it?
- Could controlled glazing or window openings address the stated privacy concern?
The houseboat example gives only the conclusion, while other dismissals lack usable neighbour-living-condition reasoning. 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
20 March 2024 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
extension of existing roof dormers.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in this appeal are: a) The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the existing property and the street scene, and b) The effect on the living conditions of neighbours.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
I am therefore satisfied that, subject to the imposition of a condition to control the glazing and openings of the side facing windows, there would be no harm to the living conditions of the neighbours on both sides of the appeal property through overlooking and loss of privacy. There would be no conflict with Policy 15 of the Adur Local Plan as well as paragraph 135 f) of the Framework, both of which amongst other matters seek to protect the amenities of neighbouring occupants.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
24 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
for the renovation of existing jetty and change of use from mooring of leisure craft boats to mooring of up to five residential houseboats.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The first main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the riverside and the visual amenities of the area. The second main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties with particular regard to noise and disturbance.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude on the second main issue that the proposal would unacceptably harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No.31, No.33 and No.35 for the reasons stated above. Accordingly, the proposal conflicts with [name] 25 and 34.
Paragraph 15 · Source page 3
21 February 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
Creation of front porch and balcony to match existing, first floor extension and re-build of single storey rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect that the proposed development would have on: • the character and appearance of the surrounding area, and • the living conditions of the occupiers of 1 The Burrells, regarding sunlight and daylight, and outlook.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Thus, I consider that the proposal would not harm the living conditions of the occupiers of 1 The Burrells, regarding sunlight and daylight, and outlook. It would satisfy LP Policy 15 which aims for development to not have an unacceptable impact on adjacent dwellings, and the Framework which seeks a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 2
17 August 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a single storey side infill/rear extension, rear dormer, front roof lights.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposal on a) the character and appearance of the host property and the locality and b) living conditions for neighbours.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude that the proposal would run contrary to the aims of S72(1) of the Act and with LP Policy 17. Furthermore LP Policy 15 is also relevant. It seeks, amongst other matters, well designed development that would protect the character and visual quality of an area, respect local distinctiveness and have appropriate architectural form. This is reflected in the advice and objectives of the Council’s 'Supplementary Planning Guidance' comprising: Development Management Standard No.2 'Extensions and Alterations to Dwellings' (SPG) publication albeit that document is guidance and cannot be expected to cover every eventuality. Given the nature of the scheme I conclude that the proposal would conflict with the relevant development plan policies and the pertinent aims of the SPG.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
7 March 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a rear dormer.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area and on the living conditions of nearby occupiers with particular regard to any overbearing effect.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposed extension would be sited above and adjoining existing built form. [name] 72 has a part single, part two storey rear addition and No 76 has a substantial single storey extension to the rear. The proposed development would not extend beyond these. Therefore, although it would be visible, particularly from the adjoining gardens, given the existing context it would not be so overbearing as to unacceptably effect the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2