City of Westminster appeal evidence
Refused over neighbour living conditions in City of Westminster?
See which evidence on noise, privacy and outlook mattered in local examples before comparing 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
- 13 of 85
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 2
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 11
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 11
- of 13 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: Westminster LPA (51.513445, −0.160438). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
City of Westminster appeal findings
Noise, privacy and outlook in Westminster
The selected examples have a different outcome mix from the matched local set. Some dismissed extracts give only conclusions without their preceding analysis.
Counted against appeals
Westminster noise and privacy concerns
Unproven barking-dog noise routes
No precise noise escape routes or test evidence showed that barking dogs would not harm flats above.
Privacy harm to terrace neighbours
The roof-terrace proposal was concluded to harm nearby residents’ living conditions through privacy.
Privacy differed between neighbours
The roof-level decking scheme was found not to harm some occupiers but to harm others through privacy.
Helped or needed
Rear openness in Westminster
Rear openness remained
Despite the tight urban setting, the neighbouring flat retained some rear openness and several windows facing the site.
Projection and height avoided harm
The rear projection and final height were not considered significantly harmful to that flat’s living conditions.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does your refusal notice identify a noise route or missing test evidence?
- Which neighbours’ privacy does your refusal notice say would be harmed?
- Does your refusal notice address rear openness and facing windows?
The trellis example also considered a conservation area, so its acceptable outlook conclusion sits at this theme’s edge. 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
29 October 2021 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
for the erection of a rear closet wing and lift within the closet wing.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in both appeals is the effect of the development on the living conditions of the neighbouring property, namely the first floor [address], in terms of outlook.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Although space between buildings is an important consideration that contributes to the enjoyment of properties by their occupiers and which can be harmed through unacceptable incremental additions and boundary treatments, I do not consider that the projection of some 1560mm as proposed by the appeal schemes or their final height would be significantly harmful to the living conditions of occupiers of the flat at No.49. Despite the tight urban grain found at this location, I found that a degree of openness exists to the rear aspect of No.49, which benefits from the number of openings facing the appeal site. Consequently, the proposals would not create unacceptable material loss of residential amenity, which Policy S29 of the Council’s City Plan seeks to prevent but rather, the development would improve the residential environment overall.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
11 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
Use of the basement and ground floors as a retail shop, pet wellness and grooming with an overnight boarding facility (sui generis use).
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the local residents by way of noise associated with the boarding of dogs within the basement level of the appeal site.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Therefore, with no precise noise escape routes identified and without robust evidence to illustrate that all noise pathways are correctly identified within this basement through a suite of accurate test results, it has not been demonstrated that no harm would arise to the living conditions of the occupants of the residential flats above arising from the sound of barking dogs.
Paragraph 17 · Source page 3
12 May 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
replacement of windows and creation of new roof terrace at third floor level.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether [address] are residential (Nos 5-10) and, if so, whether the living conditions of existing occupiers of Nos 7 and 8 are likely to be affected through the use of the proposed development, with particular regard to privacy.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
For these reasons, I conclude that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of existing nearby residents. I therefore find conflict with Policy 7 of the City Plan, which seeks, amongst other things, to protect privacy and prevent overlooking.
Paragraph 22 · Source page 4
10 November 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
erection of trellis to the existing boundary.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: i) whether the development preserves or enhances the character or appearance of the St John’s Wood Conservation Area (CA); and ii) the effect of the development on living conditions for occupiers of [address] (No 52), with particular regard to outlook.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude, the development has an acceptable effect on living conditions for occupiers of No 52, with particular regard to outlook. In that particular regard, the development accords with Policies 7(A) and 38(C) of the CP which require development to ensure a good standard of amenity for new and existing occupiers and to prevent unacceptable impacts in terms of sense of enclosure.
Paragraph 14 · Source page 3
30 June 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
retention of existing decking at roof level and erection of glazing screen on party wall.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the development as a whole on the character and appearance of the area, including the Bayswater Conservation Area; and on the living conditions of the occupants of neighbouring properties, with particular regard to privacy.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Accordingly, while I have found that the development as a whole would not harm the living conditions of the occupants of Nos 51 and 54, it would harm the living conditions of the occupants of 52 and [address] in respect of privacy. It therefore fails to accord with Policies 7 and 33 of the City Plan 2019-2040 and its expectation that development avoid unacceptable impacts on the amenity of neighbouring properties. Appeal Planning Officer APP/X5990/D/25/3362106
Paragraph 18 · Source pages 3, 4