Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over neighbour living conditions in Calderdale Metropolitan?
See what selected local examples say about privacy, daylight, outlook and missing evidence.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 22 of 96
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 6
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 16
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 20
- of 22 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: Calderdale LPA (53.721195, −1.973456). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council appeal findings
Privacy, daylight and outlook in Calderdale appeals
The selected examples have a different outcome mix from the matched local set, and the allowed extract gives only its conclusion.
Counted against appeals
Daylight, outlook and evidence gaps
Rear extension reduced daylight
The proposed rear extension was found harmful to daylight for residents at No 10.
Replacement extension harmed outlook
The Inspector found harm to neighbouring occupiers’ outlook.
Evidence did not rule out harm
For the outline dwelling, the Inspector found insufficient contrary evidence and concluded it would harm neighbouring occupiers.
Helped or needed
Why the decking appeal succeeded
Worse privacy alternative mattered
The Inspector concluded that a likely alternative would cause worse privacy effects and could not be controlled by conditions.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does your refusal cite daylight, outlook, overlooking or privacy?
- Could a revised layout avoid the stated privacy loss?
- What evidence answers the neighbour harm in the refusal?
The allowed extract is conclusion-only, while the outline-dwelling example also covers future living conditions and drainage. 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
19 October 2021 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
the installation of decking.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the development on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers at [address] with particular regard to overlooking and loss of privacy.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I have found that there would be a minor conflict with the development plan as it seeks to protect the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, including through the effects of overlooking and loss of privacy. However, in the face of a likely alternative scheme resulting in worse effects on privacy and which could not be controlled through planning condition/s, leads me to the conclusion that the appeal should succeed.
Paragraph 19 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
8 January 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a rear balcony.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development upon the living conditions of the occupiers of No. 4 [name] and No.[address] in terms of privacy.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the above reasons, I conclude that when the development is considered as a whole it fails to accord with the amenity and design requirements of LP Policy BT2 and with chapter 12 of the Framework.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 2
13 May 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the addition of a front and rear dormer and single storey rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area; and • the impact of the proposed single-storey rear extension on the living conditions of neighbouring residents, with particular regard to the impact on daylight at 10 [name] (No 10).
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Consequently, I find that the proposed rear extension would have a harmful impact on the living conditions of neighbouring residents at No 10, with particular regard to daylight. This would conflict with Policy BT2 of the Local Plan which seeks to ensure that development proposals do not result in significant adverse impact on the amenity of adjacent residents.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 3
18 March 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a side and rear extension to replace existing two storey side extension and demolition of rear garages.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in this case are the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; and its effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with regards to outlook and daylight.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Taking all of the above into account, I find that the proposed development would harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with regards to outlook, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; to Policy BT2 of the Calderdale Local Plan; and to the Council’s Placemaking and Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document, which together amongst other things, seek to protect residential amenity.
Paragraph 15 · Source pages 2, 3
18 February 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
outline application for a new dwelling - all matters reserved.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • The effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of nearby dwellings and whether the proposed development would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers, with particular reference to privacy; • Whether adequate details relating to drainage have been provided; and • The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, including the setting of the Todmorden Conservation Area (CA).
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the reasons set out above, and in the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary, the proposal would result in unacceptable harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, would not provide acceptable living conditions for future residents, and would be unacceptable in respect of drainage matters. [name] have found that development could be designed in a manner that would not harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area or the setting of the CA, that is a neutral matter in the planning balance.
Paragraph 26 · Source page 5