London Borough of Croydon appeal evidence
Refused over neighbours’ privacy or outlook in Croydon?
See the selected local concerns and the stated privacy or outlook findings from allowed 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
- 92 of 260
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 27
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 64
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 76
- of 92 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: Croydon LPA (51.355336, −0.087133). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
London Borough of Croydon appeal findings
Croydon neighbour privacy and outlook
The selected examples lean more towards allowed decisions than the matched local set, and several extracts give conclusions without their earlier explanation.
Counted against appeals
Substantial harm at No.104
Substantial harm to No.104
For the rear extension, the Inspector concluded that it would substantially harm the living conditions of No.104’s occupiers.
Helped or needed
When privacy or outlook was not harmed
Low side-garage extension
The side-garage extension added about 1.8 metres with little or no extra height. The Inspector found no significant adverse impact on outlook.
Raised patio privacy conclusion
For the raised patio, planter and privacy screen, the Inspector concluded that neighbours’ privacy would not be unacceptably harmed.
Dormer privacy and outlook conclusion
For the dormer and roof lights, the Inspector concluded that neighbours’ privacy and outlook would not be harmed.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify a neighbour’s affected window, garden or outlook?
- How much extra height or depth would sit beside a neighbour’s building?
- Do your drawings show the direction of neighbours’ main windows?
Appeal 90640 concerns future HMO occupiers rather than neighbours, and several displayed extracts state conclusions without earlier 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
3 examples
23 April 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
erection of dormer window extension in the rear roof slope and 4no. roof lights in the front roof slope, 2no. roof lights to the rear roof slope and 1no. roof light to the side roof slope.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] with regards to privacy and outlook.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
The proposal would therefore not harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with regard to privacy and outlook. As such, the proposal would comply with Policies D3 and D6 of the London Plan (2021) and Policies SP4.2 and DM10.6 of the Croydon Local Plan (2018) which seek to ensure that high quality developments deliver appropriate outlook, privacy and amenity, do not result in direct overlooking at close range, and that the amenity of occupiers of adjoining buildings is protected.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
14 November 2023 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
Retention of raised patio at rear. Erection of raised planter and raised privacy screen.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal upon the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers at [address], with particular regard to privacy.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore conclude that the proposed development would not unacceptably harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers at [address], with particular regard to privacy.
Paragraph 20 · Source page 3
18 November 2021 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a single storey rear flat roof extension and porch infill below an existing flat roof to front/side.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development upon the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] in respect of privacy, outlook and daylight.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposed extension, being an addition of approximately 1.8 metres to the existing side garage, with little or no addition to its height, would not result in any significant, adverse impact upon the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] in terms of outlook. Views from its main rear windows would be directly down the length of its rear garden.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
2 examples
29 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a single storey rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect on the living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For these reasons, I find that the proposal would result in substantial harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of No.104. This would conflict with Policies SP4 and DM10 of the Croydon Local Plan (2018) and Policies D3 of the London Plan
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
18 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
conversion of the application site for the provision of a sui-generis house in multiple occupation for the accommodation of 8 people, the erection of an outbuilding for general storage and a cycle storage unit within the rear garden and bin storage units within the front garden.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed change of use on the supply of small family homes (both appeals), • the effect of parking associated with the proposed change of use on the operation and safety of the highway network (both appeals), • whether satisfactory provision would be available for refuse, recycling and cycle storage (both appeals, with different detailed considerations), • whether statutory biodiversity net gain requirements would be addressed (Appeal A), • whether the proposal would provide satisfactory living conditions for future occupiers, with particular regard to outlook and daylight from the ground floor bedrooms (Appeal B), and • the effect on the character and appearance of the area (Appeal B).
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude that, while there would be some level of visual intrusion within the outlook from the front windows, the Appeal B proposal would overall provide satisfactory living conditions for future occupiers. It would provide adequately comfortable and functional accommodation, meeting the likely needs of residents of the proposed HMO use, and there is no conflict with applicable design requirements in CLP Policy SP2 or London Plan Policy D6.
Paragraph 47 · Source page 8