Cornwall Council appeal evidence
Refused over neighbour living conditions in Cornwall?
See what selected local examples say about privacy, disturbance and daylight.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 29 of 128
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 5
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 23
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 21
- of 29 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: Cornwall LPA (50.405973, −4.824778). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Cornwall Council appeal findings
Privacy, disturbance and light in Cornwall homes
Example 89318 gives only a character-and-appearance conclusion, so it cannot explain the neighbour-living-conditions issue.
Counted against appeals
Noise, privacy and overlooking concerns
Roof-terrace use increased harm
A usable roof terrace beside a neighbour’s window was found more harmful for noise, disturbance and privacy than the fallback balcony.
Overlooking harmed a neighbour
The inspector concluded that the external steps would harm No 1’s living conditions through overlooking.
Protection from noise was unproven
The inspector concluded it had not been demonstrated that neighbours would be protected from noise and disturbance.
Helped or needed
Evidence supporting neighbour protection
A revised assessment supported modest impact
A revised assessment and the inspector’s site observations supported no undue loss of light or harmful overshadowing.
No breached test was identified
The Council did not suggest a breach of the daylight and sunlight guide, and no local test or standard was identified.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify overlooking, privacy, noise, disturbance, light or overshadowing?
- Does it compare your proposal with a practical fallback scheme?
- Is there a site-based assessment of light or overshadowing?
The selected examples span extensions, a balcony, steps and site use, so their facts are not interchangeable. 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
30 September 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
demolition of existing rear extension and construction of replacement partial two storey extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers at [address] (No.35).
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The revised ASA shows that the impact of the proposal on No.35 would be modest and from my interpretation of its findings, it does not support the view that there would be an undue loss of light or that there would be a harmful increase in overshadowing. That finding is supported by my observations on site. I also note that the Council do not suggest that the proposal would lead to any infringement of, for example, the ‘BRE Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight - a guide to good practice (2022)’. My attention has also not been drawn to any local guidance on extensions or any relevant tests or standards that are applied when assessing the impact of new extensions on neighbours living conditions. The Council do refer to part 2.b of policy 12 of the Cornwall Local Plan Strategic Policies 2010–2030 (CLP) but this is a generic policy seeking to protect properties from the overshadowing and overbearing impacts of any new development.
Paragraph 9 · Source pages 2, 3
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
24 February 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
amendments to existing dormer, creation of balcony & associated works.
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 noise and disturbance as well as privacy.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The construction of a Juliet balcony at the second floor of Rivendell, to my mind would be less harmful than the proposed scheme given that it would not allow for future occupants to use a rear roof terrace as a useable space directly adjacent to the window located on No 8. Consequently, it remains to my mind, that in comparison to the fallback position, the appeal scheme results in greater harm to the living conditions of the occupants of No 8 regarding noise and disturbance as well as privacy.
Paragraph 14 · Source page 2
6 January 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
New external steps to access parking area.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], with particular regard to overlooking and disturbance.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Nevertheless, for the above reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No 1, with particular regard to overlooking. I therefore find that it conflicts with Policy 12 of the Cornwall Local Plan Strategic Policies 2010-2030 (CLP). Amongst other aspects, this requires development to protect individuals from overlooking and unreasonable loss of privacy. The proposal would also be inconsistent with the provisions in the Framework in relation to achieving well-designed places; and the guidance in the [name] in relation to being a good neighbour and respecting and maintaining the privacy of residents.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
28 May 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
change of use of the former farm yard from agricultural (sui generis) to B8 storage/distribution use and to ratify the localised engineering/construction works 'associated operational development' (car parking, reduced levels dig and erection of a portacabin office) reasonably necessary and associated with the implementation of that viable alternative use of the site.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • whether the appeal site is a suitable location for the development with regard to the local spatial strategy and character and appearance of the area; and • the effect of the development on the living conditions of the occupants of [site address] , [name] and residents on [address] and [address], with particular regard to noise and disturbance.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Consequently, for the above reasons I conclude that it has not been demonstrated that the development would protect the living conditions of the occupants of [site address] , [name] and residents on [address] and [address], with particular regard to noise and disturbance. The development is contrary to [name] 1 and 12 which seek, amongst other things, to protect individuals and property from unreasonable noise and disturbance.
Paragraph 29 · Source page 5
26 May 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
[name] following Permission in Principle for Construction of [name] & [address].
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: • the living conditions of the occupants of ‘[name] and ‘ [site address] ’ in regard to outlook, privacy and overshadowing, and also the occupants of the proposal and ‘ [site address] ’ with regard the provision of outdoor space; and • the character and appearance of the area, having regard to the setting of [site address] .
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Consequently, I conclude that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area, having regard to the setting of [site address] . The proposal would conflict with LP policies 2, 12, 23 and 24 and policies 9 and 14 of the Perranarworthal Neighbourhood Development Plan 2021-2030 (NP). These policies seek, amongst other things, to ensure development is of high-quality design which maintains and enhance historic character and conserve, and where appropriate enhance the historic environment.
Paragraph 20 · Source page 4