City of York Council appeal evidence
Refused over neighbour living conditions in City of York?
See what the selected examples say about neighbour outlook, daylight, sunlight and HMO occupation in City of York.
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 74
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 4
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 11
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 10
- 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: York LPA (53.958761, −1.061466). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
City of York Council appeal findings
York neighbour harm: outlook, daylight and HMO use
The selected examples have a larger allowed share than the matched local set. The neighbour-focused allowed extract gives only a conclusion. Another allowed example concerns future occupants, not neighbours.
Counted against appeals
Extensions and HMO use harmed neighbours
Outlook significantly harmed
A side-return extension was found to cause significant harm to a neighbour’s outlook.
Daylight and sunlight reduced
A rear extension was found harmful because it would cause loss of daylight and sunlight for a neighbour.
HMO occupation harmed neighbours
For a ten-bedroom HMO, the Inspector concluded the site was not shown to function adequately at the proposed occupation level and would harm neighbours’ living conditions.
Helped or needed
Allowed York HMO and extension extracts
HMO layout was assessed
For the HMO conversion, the stated test was whether layout and environmental qualities could accommodate added residents. The cited text does not say why the appeal was allowed.
No neighbour harm concluded
For a raised-roof and side extension, the Inspector concluded it would not harm neighbours’ living conditions. The cited text gives no detailed reasons.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does your refusal cite a neighbour’s outlook?
- Could your extension reduce a neighbour’s daylight or sunlight?
- For more residents, can the site function without harming neighbours?
The dismissed HMO example also covers site operation, so it cannot isolate neighbour-living-condition reasoning. 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
3 June 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
change of use from dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) to House in [name] (Use Class C4).
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether the development would provide acceptable living conditions for the occupiers, having regard to the size, layout and functionality of the bedrooms and provision of communal space.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Policy H8 of the City of York Local Plan (2025) (YLP) requires that development for Houses in [name] (HMO) provides living accommodation of a high standard. The Council’s Supplementary Planning Document: Controlling the Concentration of HMOs (2014) (SPD) reinforces that the assessment should focus on whether a dwelling is capable of accommodating additional residents and whether acceptable living conditions would be secured in practice, having regard to the internal layout and environmental qualities.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 1
20 May 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
extension of existing bungalow to create accommodation within raised roof, and single-storey side extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposal on; • the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area; and • the living conditions of the occupiers of No. 34 Beaverdyke, with particular regard to outlook.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For these reasons, the proposal would not cause harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, it is therefore in accordance with the overall aims of Policy D11 of the City of York Local Plan (2025) which among other things seeks to safeguard the amenity of neighbouring occupiers.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
18 January 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a single storey, side return extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupants of [address] with regard to outlook and light.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposed development would therefore cause significant harm to the living conditions of occupants of no. [address] with regard to outlook. It would be contrary to paragraph 135 of the Framework which requires that developments ensure a high standard of amenity.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 2
5 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
change of use of a dwelling house (Use Class C3) to a ten-bedroom House in [name] ([name]).
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • whether the development would provide a high standard of accommodation for the occupiers in terms of internal layout and communal provision; • whether the proposal demonstrates that the site can satisfactorily accommodate the intensity of use proposed, including parking, cycle storage, and refuse arrangements; • the effect of the development on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with regards to associated activity, servicing and the relationship to [address].
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
However, for the reasons set out above, the development would give rise to a number of interrelated harms. It would fail to provide a satisfactory standard of accommodation for future occupiers, it has not been demonstrated that the site could function adequately at the level of occupation proposed, and it would result in unacceptable impacts on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. There is conflict with Policies H8, T1 and D1 of the YLP. Taken together, these matters weigh very significantly against the proposal.
Paragraph 29 · Source page 5
13 May 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a single storey extension to the side and rear elevations.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] in respect of received light.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I find that the proposed rear extension would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of neighbours at [address] in respect of loss of daylight and sunlight. It would therefore conflict with guidance in the Council’s supplementary planning document which advises that proposals should not unduly affect neighbouring amenity, with particular regard to overshadowing and loss of light. It would also fail to comply with policies D1 and D11 of the City of York supplementary planning document which seek to protect the amenity of neighbours, including from overshadowing effects.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2