East Devon District Council appeal evidence
Refused over neighbour living conditions in East Devon?
See how tree effects harmed future homes and when outdoor living needed no protection.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 13 of 86
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 6
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 6
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 8
- of 13 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 Devon LPA (50.764399, −3.22411). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
East Devon District Council appeal findings
Tree shade and outdoor living in East Devon
Selected extracts find both acceptable living conditions and tree-related harm, so an appeal outcome alone does not explain this issue.
Counted against appeals
Trees affecting future homes
Protected trees overshadowed homes
On a constrained plot, protected trees caused overshadowing and enclosure, leaving future occupants without acceptable living conditions.
Retained trees were too close
The Inspector concluded that cottages close to retained trees would not provide acceptable living conditions for future occupants.
Helped or needed
Direct harm to outdoor living
No direct outdoor-living harm
The Inspector found no need to protect occupants’ outdoor living conditions as a direct consequence of the development. Removing permitted development rights was therefore unjustified.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify protected trees causing overshadowing or enclosure?
- Does it explain how close retained trees are to proposed homes?
- Does any proposed condition address a direct effect on outdoor living conditions?
The selected examples have a different outcome mix from the matched local set, and the condition case sits at this issue’s edge. 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
30 September 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
“Retrospective planning permission for construction of shed, log store and raised beds constructed from timber sleepers to front (south) of property, and installation of timber sleeper retaining structures from to the rear (north) of property”.
Issue identified by the Inspector
Accordingly, the main issues in this case are whether the disputed condition is relevant to the development and whether it is reasonable and necessary in the interests of protecting the living conditions of local residents and preserving and enhancing the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Also, given that the Planning Practice Guidance indicates that conditions restricting permitted development rights should only be imposed in exceptional circumstances, the second part of the condition which removes permitted development rights is not justified. Since there is no need to protect the outdoor living conditions of the occupants of [address] as a direct consequence of the development, it follows that there are no exceptional circumstances.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
26 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
siting of temporary rural workers dwelling.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • whether there is an essential need for a dwelling to accommodate a rural worker at the appeal site having regard to functional need, viability and the availability of other dwellings nearby; • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; and • whether the proposal provides suitable living conditions in respect of internal space.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
In this instance, bearing in mind the temporary nature of the proposal and the standard of the accommodation I saw at my site visit, I am satisfied that the proposal provides suitable living conditions in respect of internal space. As such the proposal complies with the provisions of Policy D1.
Paragraph 42 · Source page 6
1 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a shed at the front of the house.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • The effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area; and • The effect of the development on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with regard to outlook.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
As such the development does not have such an adverse impact on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with regard to outlook. Accordingly, the proposal complies with policy D1 of the Local Plan, insofar as it seeks to respect the amenity of occupiers of adjoining residential properties.
Paragraph 14 · Source page 3
1 April 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
to erect a single storey 1-bed detached dwelling with associated amenity space.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; • whether the proposal would provide an acceptable standard of living conditions for future occupiers, having particular regard to the presence, influence and protection status of protected trees; and 1 Appeal reference APP/U1105/W/24/3345960 • whether the proposal makes satisfactory provision for the management and disposal of surface water.
Paragraph 5 · Source pages 1, 2
Reasoning from the decision
For these reasons, the proposal would not provide an acceptable standard of living conditions for future occupants. The constrained nature of the plot, combined with the dominance of the protected trees and the resulting overshadowing and enclosure, means the proposal conflicts with Strategy 6 and Policy D1 of the LP and Policies EN1 and EB2 of the NP, which collectively require, in part, for development to ensure suitable living conditions. The proposal also conflicts with Policy D3 of the LP, insofar as it seeks to achieve a sustainable long-term relationship between development and existing protected trees.
Paragraph 15 · Source page 3
18 February 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
4 no Cottages.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • the effect of the proposal on the setting and significance of [site address] , a [name] listed building, having regard to the contribution made by the existing tree belts; and • whether the proposed dwellings would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers, having regard to the proximity of retained trees.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For these reasons, the proposal would not provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers, having regard to the proximity of retained trees. Consequently, it conflicts with Policy D1 of the LP, which requires development to provide a good standard of amenity.
Paragraph 21 · Source page 4