Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over neighbour living conditions in Dudley Metropolitan?
See which neighbour effects inspectors found harmful or acceptable 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
- 39 of 107
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 16
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 23
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 35
- of 39 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: Dudley LPA (52.482882, −2.10874). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council appeal findings
Dudley neighbour privacy, outlook and daylight
Selected examples lean allowed, unlike the matched local set. The dismissed extract gives only a conclusion. The care-home record is edge-of-scope and its cited passage finds harm.
Counted against appeals
Dudley visual impact at No 13
Harm to No 13’s residents
The Inspector found the wraparound extension’s visual impact on No 13’s residents sufficient to dismiss the appeal.
Helped or needed
Dudley privacy, outlook and daylight
Rear extension and decking privacy
In the first-floor rear extension and raised decking examples, inspectors found no unacceptable privacy effects.
Rear extension outlook and daylight
For the single-storey rear extension, the Inspector found no harm to neighbours’ outlook or daylight.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal name privacy, outlook, daylight or visual impact?
- Which neighbour is said to be affected, and in what way?
- Is your proposal a rear extension, wraparound extension or raised decking?
Appeal 86827 is labelled allowed, but its displayed extract concludes harm. Check its official decision before relying on it. 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
4 examples
24 November 2023 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
described as a first-floor rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of No [address] with particular regard to privacy.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For these reasons, the proposed development would not have an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No6 [address] with particular regard to privacy. Therefore, the proposed development accords with Policies L1 and S6 of the Dudley Borough Development Strategy (2017) , the advice contained within the Dudley Council Residential Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2023), and the National Planning Policy Framework (2023). Together, amongst other things, these seek to ensure good design and that a good standard of amenity for neighbouring properties is maintained.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
16 July 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a single storey rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of Number [address], with regards to outlook and daylight.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Taking all of the above into account, I find that the proposed development would not harm the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers of Number [address], with regards to outlook and daylight and would not be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; to Policy L1 of the Dudley Borough Development Strategy (2017); or to the Council’s Residential Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2023), which together amongst other things, seek to protect residential amenity.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
3 June 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
the provision of raised decking with glass balustrade and access steps and raised fence height to side boundary.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the appeal development on the living conditions of neighbouring residents in regard to privacy.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Accordingly, I find that the appeal development does not harm the living conditions of neighbouring residents in regard to privacy. It therefore accords with Policy L1 of the Dudley Borough Development Strategy (2017) (DBDS) where it seeks to ensure that residential development does not cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings, including harm arising from the loss of privacy.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 3
31 March 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
the construction of a care home facility (C2 use class), with demolition of existing office building, and associated access, landscaping and ancillary works.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The effect of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the area; and • the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with regard to privacy, outlook and loss of light.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Consequently, for the above reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with regard to privacy, outlook and loss of light. As such, it would not accord with Policies L1 and D2 of the DS. These, together and amongst other things, seek development that is appropriate for the locality that would not unacceptably harm the amenities of neighbouring properties. [name]
Paragraph 24 · Source page 4
Dismissed appeal examples
1 example
8 May 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a single storey side and rear wraparound extension and front porch.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: (a) the character and appearance of the host property and its surroundings, and (b) the living conditions of the residents of [address] with specific reference to light and visual impact.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I find in favour of the appellants on the first main issue - that relating to the effects of the proposals on the character and appearance of the host property and its surroundings. However, I find against them on the second issue - the effect on the living conditions of No 13’s residents by reason of its adverse visual impact. On balance, this is sufficient reason to dismiss the appeal.
Paragraph 14 · Source page 3