Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over neighbour living conditions in Barnsley Metropolitan?
Learn which room-size, shared-space and neighbour effects appear in the selected local examples.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 11 of 38
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 1
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 10
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 9
- of 11 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: Barnsley LPA (53.538831, −1.508894). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council appeal findings
Living conditions: rooms, shared space and a balcony
Allowed comparison is limited. The selected examples’ outcome mix differs from the matched local set, and extracts 31133 and 82674 give conclusions without earlier analysis.
Counted against appeals
Room space and balcony harm
Shared space was too limited
Several bedrooms had no private facilities, and communal living space was particularly short for the two smallest bedrooms.
Rooms missed minimum sizes
Although the flat met the overall floor-space figure, its bedroom and kitchen fell below the stated minimum room sizes.
Balcony harm was not explained
The selected extract concludes that the balcony harmed No 23’s living conditions, but does not explain how.
Helped or needed
No harm in the garage conversion
Privacy, noise and disturbance
The selected extract concludes that the garage conversion would not harm existing or future occupiers in these respects.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Are bedroom and kitchen sizes below the standards named in the refusal?
- Do residents without private facilities have enough shared living space?
- Does the refusal explain the claimed harm to a neighbour’s living conditions?
Appeal 53350 found no outlook harm but was dismissed on another main issue, making it an edge-of-scope comparison. 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
14 April 2023 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
conversion of detached garage to granny flat.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: • the living conditions of existing occupiers of the existing dwelling and the future occupiers of the proposed annex, with regard to privacy, noise and disturbance; and • the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
As such, the proposal would not be harmful to the living conditions of existing occupiers of the existing dwelling or the future occupiers of the proposed annex, with regard to privacy, noise and disturbance, and so would accord with Policy GD1 of the Local Plan (2019). This policy, amongst other things, requires proposals to have no significant adverse effect on the living conditions of existing and future residents.
Paragraph 9 · Source pages 2, 3
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
11 May 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
change of use of property from dwelling (C3 use) to use as a seven person house in multiple occupation (sui generis use).
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • whether the development provides satisfactory living conditions for existing and future occupiers, with regards to internal and external living space; • whether the development results in the unacceptable loss of family accommodation; and, • the effect of the development on highway safety, with regards to the provision of parking.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I recognise that three of the bedrooms benefit from additional private facilities. However, this is not the case for the remaining four bedrooms. The shortfall in communal living space is particularly acute for occupants of the two smallest bedrooms. The existence of a HMO licence does not overcome the harm arising from the internal configuration of the property, nor does it render the arrangement acceptable in planning terms. I therefore find that the internal living conditions to be unacceptable.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
20 February 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
subdivision of existing dwellinghouse to create 2x 1-bedroom flats.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • the effect of the subdivision of the property; and, • whether appropriate living conditions would be secured for the occupiers of the proposal, with particular regard to internal floor space and the provision of external amenity space.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Policy GD1 of the LP require development to have no significant adverse effect on the living conditions of residents. The South Yorkshire Residential Design Guide 2011 (RDG) notes that a one-bedroom unit should provide 46m2 of space for a one-person unit. Overall, the proposed subdivision would comply with this specific requirement. However, the RDG further details the room sizes which must be achieved as a minimum. It states that a one-bedroom flat should have a bedroom which is 12m2 and a kitchen that is 13m2. The proposed ground floor flat would fall short of these minimum standards.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 2
13 January 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
rear metal first floor balcony with side screening and glass balustrade.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: a) the character and appearance of the host dwelling; and b) the living conditions of occupiers of No [address] (No 23), with particular regard to privacy, outlook, noise and light.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the reasons set out above, the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and on the living conditions of occupiers of No 23. Therefore, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 3
2 July 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as: ‘retrospective planning application for the construction of carport forward of the principle elevation.’
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the development on: • the character and appearance of the area; and • the living conditions of the occupants of No [address] (No 14) with particular regard to outlook.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude that the development has not has a harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 14 with particular regard to outlook. In this regard, the development complies with Policy GD1 of the LP which requires development to have no significant adverse effect on the living conditions of existing residents. There would also be no conflict with the relevant parts of the Framework that seek a high standard of amenity. A lack of harm in respect of living conditions, however, does not alter my finding on the first main issue.
Paragraph 12 · Source pages 2, 3