Derby City Council appeal evidence
Refused over neighbour living conditions in Derby?
Learn which cited Derby examples concern noise, outlook and privacy.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 6 of 33
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 1
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 5
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 4
- of 6 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: Derby LPA (52.912568, −1.468342). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Derby City Council appeal findings
Derby disputes over noise, outlook and privacy
The selected examples omit a dismissed appeal from the matched local set, so they do not show its full outcome mix. Some concern future occupiers rather than neighbours.
Counted against appeals
Derby concerns: noise, facilities and rear extensions
Noise harm was not ruled out
The Inspector said there was insufficient evidence that noise from The Venue would not harm future occupiers.
Living standards for HMO occupiers
The Inspector concluded that communal facilities, disturbance and privacy would leave future occupiers with unacceptable living conditions.
Rear extensions cut light and outlook
The Inspector found a deep extension with increased massing would cause enclosure and loss of outlook. Another proposal was concluded to cause loss of outlook and light.
Helped or needed
Derby privacy finding for roof-space works
No material overlooking harm
The Inspector concluded that the roof-space proposal would not materially harm neighbours through overlooking and loss of privacy. This extract gives no supporting analysis.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify lost light, outlook or enclosure?
- Does it say what evidence is needed on noise or disturbance?
- Does it explain the claimed overlooking or privacy harm?
The displayed allowed extract gives a privacy conclusion, not the Inspector’s supporting analysis. 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
23 August 2022 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
raising of the roof height and installation of roof lights to form rooms in the roof space (bedroom, en-suite and study) and erection of an outbuilding (garage and studio).
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • The character and appearance of the street scene; and • The living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers, including at Nos 49 and [address] (Nos 49 and 53), with regard to overlooking.
Paragraph 4 · Source pages 1, 2
Reasoning from the decision
For the reasons outlined above, I find that the proposed development would not cause material harm to the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers, including at Nos 49 and 53, with regard to overlooking and loss of privacy. As such, it would comply with saved Policies GD5 and H16 (a) of the LPR which amongst other things, seek to ensure development respects the amenity of occupiers of neighbouring buildings, ensuring they are not harmed by inadequate privacy.
Paragraph 16 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
18 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
use of the building as an 18-bedroom House in [name] ([name]).
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of noise from nearby commercial premises on the living conditions of future occupiers of the proposed development.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Consequently, insufficient evidence has been provided to demonstrate that noise from The Venue would not harm the living conditions of the future occupiers of the proposed development. It would therefore conflict with saved policies GD5 and H13 of the City of Derby Local Plan Review, January 2006, and Policy CP10 of the Derby City Local Plan Part 1 [name] (CS), January 2017. Such policies, amongst other things, seek to ensure a satisfactory level of amenity and a high-quality living environment is provided for future users, and seeks to protect existing businesses. In addition, it would not accord with the similar aims of the Framework.
Paragraph 14 · Source page 3
9 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the change of use from offices (Use Class E(g)) to a 12 studio (20 Person) house of multiple occupation ([name]).
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether the proposed development would provide a suitable standard of living conditions for future occupiers, with regard to communal facilities, disturbance and privacy. 1 LPA reference 25/00581/FUL
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Overall, I conclude that the proposal would result in unacceptable living conditions for future occupiers, with regard to communal facilities, disturbance and privacy. Therefore, it would not comply with Policy CP3 of the Derby City Local Plan – Part 1: [name] (January 2017) (the [name]) and Policies GD5 and H13 of the City of Derby Local Plan Review (January 2006) which together seek to secure high-quality, well-designed development that creates a pleasant environment and provides a good standard of amenity. However, I do not find any particular conflict with Policy CP4 of the [name] as this appears to primarily relate to matters of character and context.
Paragraph 12 · Source pages 2, 3
9 May 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
No verified development description was available for this example.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed rear extension upon the living conditions of existing and surrounding occupiers, with particular regard to sense of enclosure, access to light and outlook.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The single storey component of the rear extension would be constructed to the width of the dwelling with the first floor component containing a small setback from the rear and side of the extension in order to allow light into the rear first floor window of the appeal dwelling. The footprint of the rear extension is quite deep at 5.15 metres for the ground floor and 3.5 metres for the 1st floor which takes up a large proportion of the rear garden. Despite this, the unusual configuration of neighbouring dwellings, particularly the small and awkward size of gardens to No.[address] and No.[address] mean that even small changes to surrounding built form can have large implications for living conditions. The presence of the proposed extension would be very noticeable with the increased massing, reduced setback and presence of the proposed extension having a detrimental impact upon the living conditions of neighbouring residents and cause a detrimental sense of enclosure and loss of outlook.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
1 December 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
Erection of rear extension to the bungalow house. Erection of outbuilding at the rear of the site.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the development on the living conditions of the occupiers of the adjoining dwelling, [address], with particular regard to outlook and daylight.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude that the proposal unacceptably harms the living conditions of the occupiers of No [address], due to the loss of outlook and light. The development is therefore contrary to Local Plan1 Policy GD5 which seeks to protect amenity by, amongst other things, ensuring no unacceptable loss of daylight or overbearing impacts.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2