Buckinghamshire Council appeal evidence
Refused over neighbour living conditions in Buckinghamshire?
See privacy, visual impact and outlook in the selected examples before comparing them with your refusal.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 6 of 35
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 1
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 4
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 4
- of 6 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: Buckinghamshire LPA (51.785348, −0.812127). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Buckinghamshire Council appeal findings
Privacy, visual impact and HMO common rooms
The selected examples leave out a dismissed appeal from the matched local set; the HMO example concerns future residents rather than neighbours.
Counted against appeals
Privacy, visual impact and missing common rooms
Privacy harm from terrace works
The Inspector concluded that the raised terrace, privacy screen and Juliette window would unacceptably harm a neighbour’s privacy.
Harmful visual impact from roof changes
The Inspector concluded that the roof alterations would harm neighbours’ living conditions through visual impact.
HMO common rooms not shown
This edge example was dismissed because sufficient common rooms for future residents had not been appropriately demonstrated.
Helped or needed
Allowed garage: outlook finding
No material outlook harm
The Inspector concluded that the allowed double garage/store would not materially harm the occupiers’ outlook.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify a privacy effect on a particular neighbouring home?
- Does it explain how roof changes create harmful visual impact?
- Does it say sufficient HMO common rooms have not been shown?
The allowed garage extract gives only an outlook conclusion, not the reasoning 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
16 June 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
erection of single storey double garage/store.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in the appeal are: • Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework and any relevant development plan policies; • The effect of the proposed development on the openness of the Green Belt; • The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the local area; • The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the Chilterns National Landscape (National Landscape); and • The effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of ‘[name] with regard to outlook.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
For these reasons, the proposal would not cause material harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of [name], having regard to outlook, and would accord with Local Plan Policy CP9, DM35 and DM36, the Framework and the SPD which seek, amongst other things, to ensure high quality design and avoid harm to neighbouring amenity.
Paragraph 27 · Source page 5
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
6 May 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
construction of new raised terrace incorporating privacy screen and new Juliette window at ground floor level. New replacement staircase.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of 1 [address] (No.1), having regard to privacy and outlook.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For these reasons, the proposed development would unacceptably harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No.1, having regard to privacy. Consequently, it conflicts with Policies DM35 and DM36 of the Wycombe District Local Plan (2019), which seek to ensure high standards of residential amenity. The proposal also conflicts with the Householder Planning and Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (2020), which provides guidance on the application of the aforementioned development plan policies.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 2
23 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
raising of roof, roof extensions/alterations to create new second floor living space and alterations to fenestration.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: (a) the character and appearance of the host property and its surroundings, and (b) on the living conditions of the residents of flat 2, [site address] with specific reference to light and visual impact.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude that scheme would give rise to a harmful visual impact affecting neighbouring living conditions. Accordingly, I find a clear conflict with those provisions of policies DM35 & DM36 of the Wycombe District Local Plan directed to preserving the amenities or preventing development giving rise to significant adverse effects on the amenities of neighbouring property.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
23 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
change of use from 6-bed house in multiple occupation (use class C4) to large house in multiple occupation (sui generis) through conversion of existing loft space and renovation of existing garden outbuilding.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the acceptability of the future living conditions of the property’s residents with specific reference to noise, disturbance and common rooms.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore conclude that it has not been appropriately demonstrated that the scheme would provide sufficient common rooms for its residents, thus harming their future living conditions. Accordingly, a conflict arises with those provisions of LP policy DM23 directed to the provision of common rooms in HMOs.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 2
Other appeal outcomes
1 example
14 May 2026 · Split Decision
Development described in the decision
described as ‘first floor extension on top of the single story extension which already exists. In this extension we want to add 2 Bedrooms and reconfigure couple of rooms. Also want to do a loft conversion to add a 2 bedrooms and a bathroom. On the ground floor would like to add a glass veranda at the back’.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in this appeal are the effect of the proposed development on:- • the character and appearance of the dwelling and the area in regards to the proposed dormers and replacement roof; • the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers in regards to outlook.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude then that the proposal would not result in significant harm to the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers at no 141 and that their outlook would remain acceptable. Neither would it significantly harm the living conditions of other neighbouring occupiers. In this regard, the proposal would comply with development policy DM45 in the LP which seeks to prevent significant adverse impacts from development on the amenities of neighbouring land and property.
Paragraph 17 · Source pages 3, 4