Babergh District Council appeal evidence
Refused over neighbours’ living conditions in Babergh?
Learn which neighbour effects appear in the selected examples and which facts to compare with your refusal notice.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 9 of 52
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 0
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 8
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 9
- of 9 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: Babergh LPA (52.050627, 0.915074). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Babergh District Council appeal findings
Babergh privacy, noise and garden effects
The matched local set has no allowed appeal. The selected examples are all dismissed, but it includes a different outcome not shown here.
Counted against appeals
Privacy, noise and garden harm
Privacy and outlook
A side window was found to cause loss of privacy. Another proposal was concluded to harm privacy and outlook at No. 7.
Noise at No 22
The heat-pump proposal was concluded to have unacceptable effects on No 22’s living conditions. Its stated issue was noise.
Height and depth near Squirrels
The unchanged height and depth of the south-west elevation were found to dominate ‘Squirrels’ and compromise reasonable use and enjoyment of its garden.
No allowed example matched
No allowed Babergh example
This snapshot has no allowed local example for this issue.
No overlooking or overbearing harm
The Inspector concluded this extension would not harm neighbours through overlooking or overbearing effects. Its dismissal means that conclusion did not settle the appeal.
Changes to height and depth
Limited changes did not overcome earlier harm where the elevation’s height and depth remained. The evidence shows revisions needed to address their effect on garden use.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify privacy, outlook, noise or an overbearing effect?
- Which window, elevation or equipment is said to cause it?
- Do your changes directly address the stated neighbour effect?
Some selected extracts give only conclusions without earlier analysis, while a selected appeal also considers character and appearance. These decisions do not predict another result.
Appeal evidence examples
Read the reasoning in matched appeal decisions
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.
Dismissed appeal examples
5 examples
26 June 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
insertion of first floor side window.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed window on the living conditions of the occupiers of No [address], with regard to privacy.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Therefore, for the above reasons, I conclude that the proposed window would have a materially harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No [address] due to the loss of privacy that would occur. Consequently, it is contrary to Policy LP24 of the JLP, which includes the requirement that development proposals should protect the amenity of surrounding uses by avoiding overlooking. It is also contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, which requires that decisions should ensure that development has a high standard of amenity1.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 2
26 November 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the installation of an air source heat pump to rear elevation
Issue identified by the Inspector
The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 22 with regard to noise.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the reasons above I conclude, the proposal would result in unacceptable impacts upon the living conditions of No 22. Consequently, the proposal is contrary to Policies LP03 and LP24 of the Babergh and Mid Suffolk Joint Local Plan Part 1 (2023) which, amongst other matters, support applications only where they will protect the health and amenity of occupiers and seeks to avoid development that results in unacceptable levels of noise. The proposal is also considered contrary to the aims set out within the Framework, specifically paragraph 135 (f) which requires development to promote a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 2
25 November 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
No verified development description was available for this example.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The effect of the proposal on • the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area, and • the living conditions of the occupants of the neighbouring dwelling at 7 Council Houses, with particular regard to privacy and outlook.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude that the proposal would harm the living conditions of the occupants of the neighbouring dwelling at No. 7, with particular regard to privacy and outlook. Accordingly, the proposal would conflict with policies LP03 and LP24 of the LP and paragraph 135 of the Framework as it fails to provide a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 3
26 March 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
side/rear extension and loft conversion with dormers. The existing exterior walls are to be clad.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the development on: • the character and appearance of the surrounding area; and • the living conditions of the occupants of 42 and 46 The Strand with particular regard to privacy and whether it would have an overbearing impact.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
In conclusion, the proposal would not harm the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring properties and would accord with policy LP24 of the JLP which, amongst other matters, seeks to ensure that new development protects the health and amenity of occupiers and surrounding uses by avoiding development that is overlooking or overbearing.
Paragraph 20 · Source page 3
12 December 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
construction of raised roof and first floor extension to property (following demolition of existing roof area) including alterations to fenestration and exterior appearance (re-submission of DC/22/06118).
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues, addressed under a single reason for refusal in the decision notice, are the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, and on the living conditions of nearby residents, with regard to outlook and privacy.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The Inspector’s principal concerns, therefore, on which his findings of harm were based were the overall height and depth of the south-west elevation, neither of which appear to have changed between the two proposals. I am mindful that appeal decisions should be determined on a consistent basis and, for this reason, and based on my own inspection and consideration of the proposal, the limited changes that have been made between the two proposals are not sufficient to overcome the findings of material harm. Due to its height and depth, the current proposal would also have a dominant and overbearing effect on the occupiers of ‘Squirrels’, particularly compromising the reasonable use and enjoyment of their garden. Moreover, despite the tree cover, the overbearing presence of the substantively larger dwelling would be apparent 1 APP/D3505/D/23/3318571 dated 12 May 2023. [address] to the detriment of the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
Paragraph 11 · Source pages 2, 3