Arun District Council appeal evidence
Refused over neighbour living conditions in Arun?
See what the selected examples say about neighbour harm, privacy screening and garden shadowing.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 12 of 31
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 4
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 8
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 12
- of 12 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: Arun LPA (50.815951, −0.607805). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Arun District Council appeal findings
Arun neighbour living conditions: shadowing and screening
The selected examples lean more towards dismissed appeals than the matched local set, and several dismissed extracts give only conclusions.
Counted against appeals
Arun extensions, balconies and neighbour harm
First-floor extension harmed No 69
The Inspector concluded that the first-floor extension would unacceptably harm the living conditions of No 69's occupants.
Screens separated balcony from windows
Extended balcony screens increased separation from No 5's window openings. The Inspector found the condition necessary to protect living conditions.
Balcony scheme conflicted with policy
The Inspector concluded that the balcony and pergola scheme, in its current form, did not accord with the cited policy protecting neighbouring residents' living conditions.
Helped or needed
Garden shadowing and visible building
Garden shadowing was not significant
The Inspector accepted some shadowing of No 1A's garden, judging it insufficient to justify refusal.
Visible building was not overbearing
Although the upper building would be visible from No 1A, the Inspector found it neither overbearing nor dominant.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal say the harm is shadowing, an overbearing building or balcony screening?
- Could screens separate the balcony from nearby windows well enough?
- Is garden shadowing significant enough to justify the refusal?
Appeal 73399 also considers character and appearance. Several dismissed extracts lack the earlier analysis. 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
7 March 2022 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
erection of a double garage and garden store.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers of [address].
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Within the above context, whilst the upper part of the new building would be visible from the garden and windows to No.1A, the impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of that property would not, in my judgement, be significant. I accept that there would be some overshadowing of the garden area to No.1A, but this would not be significant or sufficient to justify the refusal of planning permission. The resulting building relationships would be acceptable and similar to those commonly found in such locations. Consequently, the proposed building would not represent an overbearing or dominant feature when viewed from No.1A.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
22 August 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
first floor extension
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupants of [address] having regard to light and outlook.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the reasons set out above I conclude that the development would cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupants of No 69. It would therefore conflict with [name] DM1 and D DM4 of the Arun Local Plan (2018) which require proposals to have minimal impact to users and occupiers of nearby property and land, and for proposals to no have an adverse overshadowing or overbearing effect on neighbouring properties.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
22 July 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
single storey rear pergola and first floor rear balcony with sliding doors.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • the effect of the sliding doors, pergola and balcony on the character and appearance of the host property; and • the effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Accordingly, I find that the development, in its current form, would not accord with Policy D DM4 of the Arun Local Plan (2018), which seeks to protect the living conditions of neighbouring residents.
Paragraph 18 · Source page 3
9 January 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a first floor extension to existing store.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposal on a) the character and appearance of the site and surrounds and b) on living conditions for neighbours.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal proposal would have unacceptable adverse effects on the character and appearance of the site and surrounds as well as on living conditions for neighbours. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
5 December 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the erection of a front and rear extension, loft conversion and detached garage.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed privacy screens upon the living conditions at [address] with regard to overlooking.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
From my observations, the reason for the Inspector’s imposition of condition No 3 was clear to me. By extending the opaque screens around the south-eastern corner of the balcony across part of the rear terrace, the distance between the window openings at No 5 and the open section of the balcony would be increased. As such, the condition is reasonable and necessary to protect the neighbour’s living conditions. In addition, its purpose explicitly and unambiguously seeks further details to be submitted for approval in order to enable a precise assessment to be made over the efficacy of the proposed additional screening that is required. When taken with the clear timeframe for the privacy screens to be installed, the condition is clearly enforceable. It therefore satisfies the tests for the use of conditions as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Practice Guidance.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2