East Cambridgeshire District Council appeal evidence
Refused over neighbour living conditions in East Cambridgeshire?
See which neighbour effects the selected local examples identify.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 16 of 52
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 5
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 10
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 13
- of 16 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: East Cambridgeshire LPA (52.343069, 0.294625). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
East Cambridgeshire District Council appeal findings
Outdoor space, overbearing and light beside neighbours
The cited reasoning passages state conclusions rather than the site-by-site analysis behind them.
Counted against appeals
Where neighbours’ living conditions were harmed
Overbearing effect on a neighbouring home
The Inspector concluded that the new dwelling would be overbearing for the occupants of a neighbouring home.
Outdoor amenity harmed despite sunlight
Although sunlight would remain acceptable, the Inspector concluded that outdoor amenity at the adjacent northern dwelling would be harmed.
Overshadowing and loss of sunlight
The two-storey rear extension was likely to harm adjoining occupiers through overshadowing and loss of sunlight.
Helped or needed
What avoided harm to neighbours
Satisfactory outlook at No 6
The Inspector concluded that the altered dwelling would maintain satisfactory living conditions for No 6, particularly its outlook.
No unacceptable light or privacy impact
The Inspector concluded that the proposal would not unacceptably harm neighbouring light or privacy.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify overbearing effects on a neighbour’s home or garden?
- Does it explain possible overshadowing or loss of sunlight to adjoining occupiers?
- Does it assess outlook, light and privacy separately for each neighbour?
These conclusion-only passages do not show the measurements, drawings or site relationships used in East Cambridgeshire decisions. 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
26 March 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
extend current pitched roof to create 1 and 1/2 storey dwelling. Replace existing roof tiles throughout, replace existing windows, new pitched roof over current flat roof, rebuild current conservatory and construct new mono-pitch front roof, other changes to external appearance.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues of the appeal are the effect of the proposal on; • the character and appearance of the area; and • the living conditions of the occupiers of No 6 with particular regard to outlook.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude, the proposal would maintain satisfactory living conditions for the occupiers of No 6, with particular regard to outlook. Therefore, the proposal accords with policies ENV 2 of the LP and policy CHEV 7 of the NP which sets out that it will support proposals where they avoid unacceptable impacts on the amenity of occupants of neighbouring and nearby properties, ensuring that occupiers enjoy high standards of amenity.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 3
1 October 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
an addition of a second storey.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on a) the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area; and b) the living conditions for the occupiers of the neighbouring property at no.48 [name] with particular regard to light and privacy. Appeal Planning Decision APP/V0510/D/25/3361372
Paragraph 4 · Source pages 1, 2
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore conclude that the proposal would not have an unacceptable adverse impact on the living conditions for the occupiers of the neighbouring property at no.48 [name] having regard to light and privacy. The proposed development would comply with Policies ENV1 and ENV2 of the East Cambridgeshire Local Plan (2015) and the Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document. These policies and guidance seek amongst other matters to protect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers through high quality design.
Paragraph 14 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
18 May 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the demolition of a vacant garage and erection of a two-storey, two- bedroom dwelling with associated private amenity, waste storage, car and cycle parking.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; • The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupants of No.[address] as a result of overbearing; and • Whether or not the proposal would make adequate provision for parking.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposal would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupants of No.[address] as a result of overbearing. It would conflict with ECLP Policy ENV2 which seeks to ensure that there are no significantly detrimental effects on the residential amenity of nearby occupiers. Conflict would also occur with the Framework which seeks to achieve a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.
Paragraph 14 · Source page 3
17 April 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
[address]
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues of the appeal are the effect of the proposal on: • The character and appearance of the area; and • The living conditions of the occupiers of the adjacent dwelling north of the appeal site, with particular regard to outdoor amenity, arising from additional enclosure and dominance of the rear garden, and sunlight.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude, whilst the proposal would retain acceptable levels of sunlight, the proposal would harm the living conditions of the occupiers of the adjacent dwelling north of the appeal site, with particular regard to outdoor amenity. Consequently, the proposal is contrary to policy ENV2 of the LP which seeks to ensure there is no significantly detrimental effect on the residential amenity of nearby occupiers. The proposal also fails to accord with Chapter 12 of the Framework which requires development proposals to promote a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.
Paragraph 15 · Source page 3
28 August 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a two storey rear extension and porch.
Issue identified by the Inspector
There are two main issues. Firstly, the effect of the proposed two storey rear extension on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area, including the street scene of Little Green; and secondly, the effect of the two storey rear extension on the living conditions of occupiers of the adjoining dwelling with respect to light.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
It is concluded on the second main issue that the proposed development would be likely to have a materially harmful effect on the living conditions of occupiers of the adjoining property with respect to overshadowing and loss of sunlight. In consequence, it would conflict with LP Policy ENV2 which expects new development to ensure there is no significantly detrimental effect on the residential amenity of nearby occupiers.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 3