Bury Metropolitan Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over neighbours’ living conditions in Bury Metropolitan?
See the local harms cited in selected dismissed appeals and 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
- 5 of 29
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 0
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 5
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 5
- of 5 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: Bury LPA (53.587883, −2.312574). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Bury Metropolitan Borough Council appeal findings
Bury cases on neighbours’ outlook and living conditions
The matched local set has no allowed appeal. Selected example 74578 concerns future occupiers, not a neighbour.
Counted against appeals
Outlook and living-condition harm
Outlook harm to affected occupants
Inspectors concluded that extensions harmed affected occupants’ living conditions, particularly their outlook.
Side units harmed occupants
In 52489, mechanical units on the side elevation were found harmful to the living conditions of occupants at the cited address.
Personal circumstances did not outweigh harm
In 54887, the conclusion was that personal circumstances did not outweigh identified harm to neighbouring occupiers’ living conditions.
No allowed example matched
No allowed local example
This snapshot has no allowed local example for this issue.
Protect affected occupants’ outlook
The selected examples 27118 and 9167 show that proposals needed to avoid harming affected occupants’ outlook.
Address side-elevation units
The selected example 52489 shows that side-elevation mechanical units needed to avoid harming occupants’ living conditions.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal name a harmful outlook effect?
- Does it identify side-elevation units affecting living conditions?
- Does it explain why a partial change would not remove harm?
The 54887 extract contains only a conclusion, not the reasoning that led to the identified harm. 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
12 August 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as proposed single storey side and rear extension with rear dormer.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in this appeal are the effect of the development on (i) the character and appearance of the host property and area in general; and (ii) the living conditions of the occupants of No. [address].
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The SPD also confirms that extensions sited adjacent or close to a boundary should have a blank side facing the neighbour or obscure glazing and non-opening windows. Whilst there is one small rooflight also proposed to serve the bedroom the main source of natural light and view would be from the proposed first-floor side window, obscure glazed, non-opening window would not, in my view, provide adequate living conditions for future occupiers of the appeal site.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
31 July 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
No verified development description was available for this example.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect upon the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to privacy, noise and disturbance; and if any harm arises, whether there are material considerations, including personal circumstances, that outweigh such harm.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I am therefore satisfied that the PSED considerations and appellant’s personal circumstances do not outweigh the unacceptable harm that I have identified and that if I were to dismiss the appeal, it would be a necessary and proportionate approach to the legitimate aim of protecting the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers and their families, in the wider public interest.
Paragraph 21 · Source page 3
14 June 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
No verified development description was available for this example.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the area and the effect upon the living conditions of neighbours.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
[name] raise no issue with regards the non contentious elements of this scheme to the balcony and dormer that could be conditioned to make them acceptable, the front cladding and the mechanical units to the side elevation would both cause harm to the character and appearance of the area and upon the living conditions of those living at [address]. These elements cannot easily be separated as a split decision and as such I find this proposal as a whole would be in conflict with Policy H2/3 of the Bury Unitary Development Plan as well as other guidance in the form of the Alterations and Extensions Supplementary Planning Document. As such this scheme would also be in contravention to the overriding policy approach within the Framework.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 3
26 January 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
No verified development description was available for this example.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposed extension on: • the living conditions of the occupants of [address], with particular reference to outlook; and • the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area.
Paragraph 5 · Source pages 1, 2
Reasoning from the decision
For these reasons, the proposed extension would have an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of the occupants of [address], with particular reference to outlook. Consequently, it would conflict with Policy H2/3 of the Bury Unitary Development Plan (1997) (UDP). This states that applications for house extensions will be considered with regard to the amenity of adjacent properties.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
20 January 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
No verified development description was available for this example.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are (i) the effect of the proposed pitched roof extension to the front dormer on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area; and (ii) the effect of the proposed pitched roof extension to the front dormer on the living conditions of the occupants of No.[address] (No.43), with particular reference to light and outlook.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposed pitched roof extension to the front dormer would cause harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of No.43, with particular reference to outlook. It would conflict with Saved Policy H2/3 of the UDP, which has regard to the consideration of amenity of adjacent properties. It would also be in conflict with the guidance contained within SPD6, in regard to aspect standards to protect privacy and residential amenity.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 3