Crawley Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over neighbours’ light and outlook in Crawley?
See how inspectors assessed neighbour outlook and light in the selected examples.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 18 of 48
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 6
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 11
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 17
- of 18 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: Crawley LPA (51.125473, −0.182003). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Crawley Borough Council appeal findings
Crawley extension effects on light and outlook
The displayed examples have a different outcome mix from the matched local set. Some extracts give only conclusions.
Counted against appeals
Outlook harm at No 70
Outlook at No 70
The inspector concluded that the proposal would harm the outlook of occupiers at No 70.
Helped or needed
Light and outlook in Crawley extensions
No significant light or outlook loss
The inspector concluded that loss of light or outlook would not cause significant harm.
Neighbour living conditions not harmed
The inspector concluded that the proposal would not harm the neighbouring occupants’ living conditions.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify which neighbour’s outlook would be harmed?
- Does it explain whether affected windows would lose light?
- Does it describe harm as significant to neighbouring living conditions?
Some selected extracts give only conclusions. The split decision also concerns a protected tree. 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
1 October 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
single storey front extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
I consider that the main issues in this case are its effect on the character and appearance of the area and on the living conditions of neighbouring residents.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude that the proposal would not harm the living conditions of the occupants of the neighbouring property and that, in this respect, it is consistent with local plan policy DD1.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 3
1 July 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
the erection of a single storey side extension, single storey front extension and single storey rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect on the living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers, with reference to light and outlook.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For these reasons, I find that the proposal as a whole, including the already implemented rear extension, would not result in a loss of light or outlook to the extent that it would cause any significant harm to the living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers. As such, it will accord with Policy DD1 of the Crawley Borough Local Plan 2023-2040 (2024). This seeks development that would not cause unreasonable harm to the amenity of the surrounding area and retain good amenity for all.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
2 examples
5 December 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described on the application form as a ‘single storey rear extension. Two storey side extension with extension of existing side garage.’
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: i. the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and street scene; ii. the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers of [address], with regard to outlook; and iii. the effect of the proposed development on parking provision.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Consequently, I conclude that the proposed development would have a harmful impact on the outlook of the neighbouring occupiers of No 70. Therefore, the proposal would be contrary to the relevant provisions of policy DD1 of the Crawley Borough Local Plan 2023-2040. In summary, this policy seeks to achieve reasonable living conditions through good urban design. Parking provision.
Paragraph 15 · Source page 3
14 November 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
erection of a two storey side extension and a rear single storey extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: • The character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area; and • The living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers of [address] (no 32) and 22, 24, 26 and [address] (no 22, no 24, no 26, no 28), with particular regard to outlook and light.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Given the above, I find that the proposal would not have a harmful impact on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers of nos 32, 22, 24, 26 and 28, having particular regard to outlook and light. Consequently, it would therefore accord with the requirements of Policy DD1 of the CBLP, the SPD and section 12 of the Framework. Notably, these seek to ensure that development proposals do not cause unreasonable harm to the amenity of the surrounding area by way of overlooking, dominance or overshadowing and do not pose an overbearing impact on adjacent properties and create a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. Appeal Planning Officer APP/Q3820/D/25/3367354
Paragraph 16 · Source pages 3, 4
Other appeal outcomes
1 example
1 April 2025 · Split Decision
Development described in the decision
the erection of a single storey front extension to infill the existing courtyard area and a single storey rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are (i) the effect of the proposed front extension on the character and appearance of the host dwelling, its surroundings and the Forestfield and Shrublands Conservation Area, and on the living conditions for the occupiers of No. 12, and (ii) the effect of the proposed rear extension on a protected oak tree.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The Notice of Refusal also refers to an unacceptable effect on the living conditions for the occupiers of No. 12. This would be caused by the closing down of the perception of space that currently separates No. 11 from the front living room window of this neighbour. And given the high density of the development, I consider that even a relatively modest increase in wall height would have a noticeable effect on outlook and light from No. 12’s two windows, as in part illustrated by the breach of the 45 degree rule for the narrow window.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 2