East Riding of Yorkshire Council appeal evidence
Refused over neighbour living conditions in East Riding of Yorkshire?
See how selected examples assessed outlook, light and privacy for neighbours.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 35 of 98
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 8
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 26
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 31
- of 35 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 Riding of Yorkshire LPA (53.868167, −0.482526). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
East Riding of Yorkshire Council appeal findings
Outlook, light and privacy in East Riding extensions
The selected examples lean more towards dismissed appeals than the matched local set, limiting comparison.
Counted against appeals
Where outlook, light and privacy counted against extensions
Outlook harm survived privacy conditions
In these selected appeals, conditions could address privacy, but outlook still caused harm.
Light and outlook both mattered
The Inspector concluded that the extensions would harm neighbouring living conditions through light and outlook.
Privacy itself caused harm
The Inspector’s conclusion was that privacy effects would adversely affect neighbours’ living conditions.
Helped or needed
Allowed rear extension: no significant harm
No significant harm concluded
The selected allowed decision gives only the conclusion: the rear extension would not significantly harm No 130’s living conditions.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does your refusal identify outlook, light or privacy?
- Could a condition address privacy but leave outlook unresolved?
- Does the refusal say why neighbours would face significant harm?
The selected allowed rear-extension example provides a conclusion but no 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
6 October 2022 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
the erection of a rear extension with internal work also.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] with particular regard to outlook and sense of enclosure.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
On the main issue, I therefore conclude that the proposed development would not cause significant harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of No 130. As such, the appeal scheme does not conflict with Policy ENV1 of the East Riding Local Plan Strategy Document insofar as it aims to safeguard residential amenity. In addition, it would not be at odds with the policies of the National Planning Policy Framework, which seek to ensure that development, amongst other things, creates places that have a high standard of amenity for all users.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
26 March 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
single storey extension to rear / side.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], with particular regard to outlook, light and privacy.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
While the proposal would not unduly harm the privacy for the occupiers of [address], subject to appropriate planning conditions, it would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 53 overall, with particular regard to outlook and light. It would therefore conflict with Policy ENV1 of the Local Plan. This policy, among other provisions, seeks to ensure that development has regard to the amenity of existing or proposed properties.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 2
2 January 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a single storey glass room extension on the rear elevation.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development upon the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties in respect of outlook and privacy.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Therefore, I conclude that, while privacy concerns may be capable of being dealt with by planning condition, the development would nonetheless cause material harm to the outlook enjoyed by the occupiers of neighbouring residential properties. In this regard, the proposal would not accord with the amenity requirements of policy ENV1 of the LP, sections C1 and C2 of the National Design Guide, and paragraph 135(f) of the Framework. This is a matter of overriding concern and is not outweighed by any other material planning considerations.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
4 August 2021 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
erection of single storey extension to rear of existing dwelling.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupants of [address] with specific regard to light and outlook.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposed development would therefore cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupants of [address] with regard to light and outlook. It would be contrary to Policy ENV1 of the East Riding Local Plan (2016) which requires, amongst other things, that development has regard to the amenity of existing properties.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
31 July 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as: ‘Erection of a single storey extension to west side following part demolition of existing single storey extension, erection of a two storey extension to east side, installation of replacement doors and windows, installation of a roof light on west side, installation of sliding door to utility building and replacement steps and paving following removal of existing courtyard steps’.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring property, [address], with particular regard to privacy and disturbance from light spillage.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Nonetheless, for the reasons set out above I conclude that the proposal would adversely affect the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] through an adverse effect on privacy. This would be contrary to Policy ENV1 of the East Riding Local Plan Strategy Document (2016) which seeks to ensure new development has regard to the amenity of occupiers of existing properties.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 3