Broadland District Council appeal evidence
Refused over a neighbour’s living conditions in Broadland?
See how selected examples dealt with privacy, daylight and effects on nearby residents.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 13 of 27
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 4
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 9
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 9
- of 13 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: Broadland LPA (52.713643, 1.273217). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Broadland District Council appeal findings
Privacy and daylight in Broadland homes
The selected examples are more dismissal-heavy than the matched local set. The allowed mast decision gives only a conclusion on living conditions.
Counted against appeals
Roof-terrace privacy harm
Privacy harm on the drawings
The Inspector concluded that the proposal would detrimentally affect neighbouring occupiers’ privacy.
Helped or needed
No material harm from the mast
No material harm found
The Inspector concluded that the mast would not materially harm nearby residents’ living conditions.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify a privacy effect on a particular neighbouring home?
- Which room, window or garden does the refusal say is affected?
- Does the refusal explain how position or floor levels affect a neighbour?
Each selected example has another main issue beside neighbour living conditions, limiting comparison with your refusal (86437, 87381, 79870, 78001, 50654). 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
24 March 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
described as the installation of a new 25m lattice mast, hosting 6no. antennas and 2no. dish antennas, with 3no. equipment cabinets and 1no meter cabinet all within a fenced compound. All other associated ancillary apparatus and permitted development thereto.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: i) the effect of the siting and appearance of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, with particular regard to the River Wensum River Valley Landscape Character Area, and the living conditions of the residents of neighbouring properties, with regard to outlook; and ii) whether any harm caused would be outweighed by any benefits of the proposal, including the need to site the installation in the location proposed having regard to the potentially available or alternative sites.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
For the reasons stated, there would not be any material harm caused by the proposal to the living conditions of nearby residents. Insofar as they are a material consideration, the proposal would comply Policy GC4 of the DPD in respect of safeguarding residential amenity.
Paragraph 20 · Source page 4
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
14 April 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
1no. new bungalow and associated external works.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: • the integrity of European habitat sites, with regards to nutrient pollution and recreational pressure; • the character and appearance of the area; and • the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] in respect of light, and [address] and the proposed dwelling having regard to the provision of outdoor space. 1 Drawing no. 25-361 125
Paragraph 5 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Furthermore, noting that they are not the only sources of light to a habitable room, I do not find demonstrable harm through either a loss of light or an oppressive impact from the positioning of the dwelling on the two lounge windows. [name] been minded to allow this appeal, a planning condition requiring agreed finished floor levels, could have helped to safeguard the living conditions of No. 60.
Paragraph 28 · Source page 5
18 November 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a two-storey front extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the streetscene; and • The effect on the living conditions of the occupants of the neighbouring dwelling at number [address] (number 45).
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Whilst the proposal would enhance the living conditions for the appellant, by providing additional space within the dwelling, I agree with the Council that the overall scale and height of the proposed extension would be at odds with the prevailing character and appearance of the streetscene. It would stand out as an unduly prominent feature that would fail to reflect the existing form and scale of built development along this section of [address]. Consequently, it would conflict with Policy GC4 of the DPD and with the NPPF, as referred to above.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
15 October 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
single storey rear extension, upwards roof extension, addition of dormer window and balcony to front elevation.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, with particular regard to Wroxham Conservation Area (WCA) as a designated heritage asset and the setting of the Broads; and • The effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupants of [address] (No 25), with regards to daylight.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the above reasons, I do not consider that the amount of daylight to the rear garden and internal living spaces of No 25 would be reduced to a level that would cause harm to the living conditions of the property’s occupants. The proposal therefore complies with Policy GC4 of the BDM, which, amongst other things, seeks to ensure development proposals pay adequate regard to considering impact on the amenity of existing properties. The lack of harm in this regard is a neutral matter that does not weigh in favour of the proposed development.
Paragraph 18 · Source page 3
8 May 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘New roof terrace with associated second floor area’.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: (i) the character and appearance of the area, including but not limited to the setting of the Grade II Listed ‘[name]; and (ii) the living conditions of occupiers of No [address] with particular regard to privacy.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude, on the basis of the drawings before me, the proposal would have a detrimental effect on the living conditions of occupiers of No [address] with particular regard to privacy. In that regard, it would conflict with the requirements to pay adequate regard to the impact upon the amenity of existing properties in Policy GC4 (Design) of the DPD. It would also be contrary to paragraph 135 of the Framework which states that decisions should ensure that developments create places with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 3