City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council appeal evidence
Refused over neighbour living conditions in City of Bradford Metropolitan?
See the neighbour privacy, outlook and daylight points 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
- 65 of 184
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 19
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 45
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 58
- of 65 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: Bradford LPA (53.844717, −1.854735). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council appeal findings
Bradford neighbour privacy and outlook
The selected extension extract gives only its conclusion, so it does not show the assessment behind it.
Counted against appeals
Direct views and outlook harm
Raised deck faced first-floor windows
The raised decking faced first-floor windows at close range, giving users unobstructed views into habitable rooms.
Outlook and privacy harm remained
Selected conclusions found an outbuilding, and a platform with fencing, harmful to neighbours’ outlook and privacy.
Smaller impact did not end harm
Despite a small reduction from the previous appeal, a first-floor and rear extension still significantly harmed a neighbour’s outlook.
Helped or needed
Extension conclusion without assessment
No unacceptable harm found
The inspector concluded the extension would not unacceptably affect outlook, privacy or daylight. The extract gives no assessment behind that conclusion.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify direct views into neighbours’ habitable rooms?
- Do your drawings show how each change affects privacy and outlook?
- Does the refusal explain daylight effects as well as privacy and outlook?
The selected extension extract does not contain the reasoning leading to its conclusion. 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
2 April 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
2 storey extension between garage and front of house.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue of the appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of existing occupiers of the host property and the occupiers of No [address] (No 6) and No [address] (No 24) with particular regard to outlook, privacy and daylight.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would not unacceptably affect the living conditions of the existing occupiers of the host property and the occupiers of No 24 and No 6 with particular regard to outlook, privacy and daylight. It would therefore accord with Policies DS1, DS3 and DS5 of the [name], 2017 which together, amongst other matters, requires development proposals to not harm the amenity of existing or prospective users and residents. For the same reasons, the proposed development would also accord with the aims of the Householder Supplementary Planning Document which amongst other aims, seeks to protect residential amenity of neighbours.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
25 November 2021 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as timber decking built above an existing patio and part of the timber decking and supportive structure exceeds 300mm from ground as the property is on a slope.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the development on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring property no [address] with particular reference to privacy.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Whilst it is not possible for me to assess the impact that the previous patio may have had on the living conditions of neighbouring residents, based on the information provided and from what I saw on site the decking is raised from the ground level by between 0.3m and 0.7m (accounting for the slope). The resulting effect is that users of the decking area would face directly toward the first floor windows of no. [address], at a distance of around 10m thus affording them with unobstructed views into habitable rooms at a relatively close distance. I consider that this would result in an unacceptable level of overlooking which would have a significantly detrimental effect on the living conditions of the occupiers with reference to privacy.
Paragraph 7 · Source pages 1, 2
24 January 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
outbuilding in rear garden.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the development on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers of [address] with particular regard to outlook and privacy.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Consequently, even with the proposed changes to the roof, the development would be harmful to the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] in terms of outlook and privacy. This is contrary to Policy DS5 of the Bradford Core Strategy Development Plan Document (2017) where it seeks to protect the amenity of existing residents. I find that there are no material considerations that outweigh this harm and the conflict with the development plan.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
13 November 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a platform and fencing.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the development on the living conditions of the occupiers of No. [address], with particular regard to privacy and outlook.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
In conclusion, the development would result in harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of No. [address], with particular regard to privacy and outlook. This would conflict with Policy DS5 of the Bradford Core Strategy Development Plan Document (2017), which includes that development proposals should not harm the amenity of existing or prospective users and residents. It would also conflict with the Bradford Householder Supplementary Planning Document (2012), specifically Section 3 parts 10 and 11, whereby raised decking should not directly overlook the gardens or habitable room windows of neighbouring properties, and boundary treatments should not have an overbearing impact.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
28 July 2021 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a first floor extension and two storey rear extension with balcony
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of occupants of [address] with regard to outlook and light.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore conclude that although there would be a small reduction in the harmful impact of the development from that considered in the previous appeal, the proposed development would nonetheless result in significant harm to the living conditions of occupants of [address] with regard to outlook. It would be contrary to Policy DS5 of the Bradford Core Strategy Development Plan Document (2017) which requires, amongst other things, that development should not harm the amenity of existing residents.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2