Cambridge City Council appeal evidence
Refused over a neighbour’s living conditions in Cambridge?
Learn which Cambridge examples found privacy or outlook harm, and what evidence supported acceptable living conditions.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 15 of 44
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 5
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 10
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 13
- of 15 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: Cambridge LPA (52.199386, 0.132948). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Cambridge City Council appeal findings
Privacy and garden outlook in Cambridge
Appeal 67630 is conclusion-only and was dismissed for design, not neighbour living conditions.
Counted against appeals
Privacy and enclosed garden outlook
Privacy at No 25
The selected example concludes the scheme would leave No 25’s occupiers with unacceptable privacy.
Rear garden enclosure at No 11a
The selected example says the extension would significantly enclose the private rear garden and unduly restrict its occupiers’ outlook.
Helped or needed
Space, storage and noise evidence
External space and storage
External space, cycle and refuse storage, outlook, light, privacy, noise and disturbance were found acceptable.
Evidence of noise or vibration harm
No substantive evidence showed apparatus removal would harm occupiers through noise or vibration, so the need for a CEMP was not shown.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify actual overlooking or loss of privacy?
- Would the work enclose a neighbour’s garden or reduce their outlook?
- What evidence addresses noise, vibration, outdoor space, light and storage?
Appeal 75703 concerns a construction condition, so its noise evidence may not match an extension proposal. 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
2 examples
30 March 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘Retention of the use of the property at [site address] , with the basement level as a self-contained flat (Use Class C3) and the ground, first, and second floors as an 8-bedroom House in [name] (HMO) ([name])’.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • whether the acceptable living conditions are provided for occupiers of the development, having particular regard to, external space, cycle and refuse storage, outlook, light, privacy and noise and disturbance; and • the effect of the development on the living conditions of occupiers of [address] (No 26), with particular regard to noise and disturbance, outlook and privacy.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude, the development provides acceptable living conditions for occupiers of the development having particular regard to external space, cycle and refuse storage, outlook, light, privacy and noise and disturbance. In those respects it complies with Policies 35, 48, 50 and 82 of the LP which require that development will not lead to significant adverse effects and impacts on health and quality of life from noise, that buildings are suitable for use as HMOs, have internal floor areas that meet or exceed the Government’s Technical Housing Standards – [name] (2015) with appropriate amenity space having regard to factors including context and effective and practical use, and provide at least the cycle parking levels in [name] of the LP. Living conditions of occupiers of No 26
Paragraph 15 · Source page 4
3 September 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
erection of (i) 8 no. flats (4 no. studios, 2 no. one bed & 2 no. two bed flats) on the eighth floor on [site address] with removal of [name] on the roof (ii) bin-store for proposed flats occupying one existing car parking bay (iii) bespoke structure to cover 20 no. existing cycle bays (iv) structures to cover 32 no. additional cycle bays.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether conditions 6 and 25 are reasonable and necessary, with particular regard to the living conditions of occupiers of [site address] .
Paragraph 3 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
The granting of permission would not interfere with existing rights to remove the apparatus through alternative consent regimes. As such, it would not be ultra vires for the Council to require a CEMP to be approved prior to the removal of the apparatus. However, there is no substantive evidence before me that the removal of the apparatus would harmfully affect the living conditions of occupiers of [site address] , with particular regard to noise and vibration. Therefore, it is unclear why a CEMP is necessary to control the removal of the apparatus.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
31 March 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘demolition of existing single storey rear extension to end-terrace house. New two storey rear extension. New roof extension and loft conversion including rooflights. Associated refurbishment including replacement windows and new external wall insulation’.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of neighbouring occupants with regards to outlook, light and privacy.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Accordingly, I conclude that the appeal scheme would result in an unacceptable standard of living conditions for the neighbouring occupiers of No 25 with regards to privacy and thus there would be conflict with Policy 58 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2018)(LP). Among other things, this policy requires alterations and extensions to existing buildings not to unacceptably overlook neighbouring properties.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
4 June 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as: Single storey side extension. Two storey front extension. Vehicle access.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposed extensions on: • The character and appearance of the local area and host dwelling; and • the living conditions of the occupants of [address] (No.11a), with particular reference to outlook.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposal would significantly enclose the rear garden of No.11a, which provides a valuable private outside space to the occupiers of that property. This would unduly restrict the outlook enjoyed by those occupiers and cause unacceptable harm to their living conditions. Therefore, the proposal would not comply with Policy 58 of the Local Plan, which seeks to protect residents from visually dominant developments.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
7 April 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as a ‘part two storey, part single storey side and rear extension including parapet wall, hip to gable roof extension with rear dormer over proposed first floor. Erection of detached garden room to rear’.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposed development overall upon the design of the host property and the character and appearance of the area, and (ii) the effect upon the living conditions of the occupiers of No.[address] in terms of outlook.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
[name] have found that the proposed development would not have a materially harmful impact upon the living conditions of the occupants of No.[address] in respect of outlook, I have found that the design of the proposed development would have a very significant adverse impact upon the character and appearance of the host property and the area. This is a matter of overriding concern and is not outweighed by other considerations.
Paragraph 22 · Source pages 3, 4