Brighton and Hove City Council appeal evidence
Refused over neighbours’ living conditions in Brighton and Hove?
See the selected examples’ concerns and the allowed dormer’s privacy and outlook conclusion.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 32 of 100
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 11
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 22
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 29
- of 33 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: Brighton and Hove LPA (50.83743, −0.139524). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Brighton and Hove City Council appeal findings
Outlook and roof-use concerns in Brighton and Hove
A selected dismissed example concerns future occupiers and outdoor space, placing it at the edge of this neighbour-focused issue.
Counted against appeals
Brighton and Hove outlook and roof-use harms
Outlook found unacceptable
The Inspector concluded that the proposal would have an unacceptable effect on a neighbour’s outlook.
Roof could become a terrace
The guard rail left a real prospect that the roof could be used as a terrace or general amenity space, harming nearby residents’ living conditions.
Precedents had material differences
The Inspector said the cited precedents differed too much for meaningful comparison and did not outweigh the harm finding.
Helped or needed
Allowed dormer: privacy and outlook
No harm found to privacy or outlook
For the rear dormer scheme, the Inspector concluded there would be no harm to No 24’s privacy or outlook.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal explain the claimed outlook, privacy or overbearing harm?
- Could any roof, balcony or guard rail create usable outdoor space?
- Are cited precedent schemes genuinely comparable with your proposal and neighbours?
The allowed extract gives a no-harm conclusion, not the design details behind it. 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
15 June 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a rear dormer, rooflights, and raising the ridge height.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], with regard to privacy and outlook.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude that the proposal would not harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No 24 with particular regard to privacy and outlook. Consequently, it would comply with Policy DM20 of the Council’s City Plan Part Two (2022), which, amongst other matters, seeks to protect existing residents from unacceptable loss of amenity and requires new developments to be carefully designed to avoid overlooking and an overbearing effect.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
6 September 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described in the application form as ‘[name] to [name] Dwelling, extending 5.5m to the rear, 3m(h), including dropped kerb for vehicular access/ parking to front forecourt & associated internal alterations’.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], with reference to outlook.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the reasons identified above, I conclude that the proposed development would have an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of [address], in respect of outlook. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to Policy DM20 of the Brighton and Hove City Plan Part Two 2022 and the National Planning Policy Framework, which aims to protect neighbouring amenity and ensure that the proximity and size of development does not have an overbearing effect that is detrimental to the enjoyment of adjoining residential occupiers.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
26 September 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
erection of guard rail at first floor level.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the residents of [name] in terms of its potential to result in an actual or perceived overlooking leading to a loss of privacy.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude in respect of the main issue that not withstanding condition 15 there is the very real prospect that if the balustrade as designed were to be erected this roof could be used as a roof terrace or as a general amenity space. This in turn would result in harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of the residential properties in [name]. To allow the development would therefore be contrary to the objectives of Policy DM20 of the Brighton and Hove City Plan Part Two ([name] 2022), which aims to ensure, amongst other things, that development does not cause ham to residential living conditions.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 2
15 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a two-storey side extension and loft conversion with rear dormer.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are (i) the effect of the proposed extension on the living conditions for the occupiers of No. [address] as regards outlook and a perceived loss of privacy, and (ii) the effect on a tree covered by a tree preservation order (‘TPO’).
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I have carefully considered the grounds of appeal but can find nothing to outweigh my findings above. This includes the ‘precedents’ referred to in Section 6 of the appeal statement which in my view include differences to this appeal that preclude a meaningful comparison. Accordingly, I conclude that the proposal would unacceptably harm the living conditions for the occupiers of No. [address]. This would be in harmful conflict with Policies DM20 & DM21 of the Brighton & Hove City Plan Part Two 2022 and with paragraph 135f) of Government policy in the National Planning Policy Framework, December 2024.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
18 May 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the demolition of existing garage and erection of two storey dwelling house (C3) fronting [address] with landscaping and other associated works.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the appeal proposal on: • the character and appearance of the area; • the living conditions of future occupiers; and, • highway safety.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Taken together, the lack of outlook or means of ventilation to the second bedroom, along with the quality of amenity space, would in my view be harmful to the living conditions of future occupiers of the dwelling. This would conflict with Policies DM1 and DM20 of City Plan Part Two, as well as Coldean NP Policy H2 (d). Taken together, and amongst other things, these policies require new residential development to provide useable private outdoor amenity space appropriate to the scale and character of the development, along with protecting the amenity of proposed residents.
Paragraph 17 · Source page 3