Exeter City Council appeal evidence
Refused over neighbour living conditions in Exeter?
See the neighbour impacts inspectors recorded and the limits of the allowed 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
- 27 of 62
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 8
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 19
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 23
- of 27 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: Exeter LPA (50.721631, −3.5102). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Exeter City Council appeal findings
Neighbour daylight and outlook in Exeter refusals
The allowed extracts give little reasoning: a no-harm conclusion and conditions for future flat occupiers. The density dismissal sits at the edge of this issue.
Counted against appeals
Harm found in dismissed examples
Marked bedroom daylight loss
Combined changes markedly reduced daylight at a bedroom window and substantially worsened outlook, which the Inspector found unacceptable.
Significant harm to a neighbour
The Inspector concluded the balcony proposal caused significant harm to a neighbouring home’s living conditions.
Helped or needed
What the allowed examples show
No harmful effect found
The Inspector concluded the rear extension did not harm adjoining occupiers enough to withhold permission.
Conditions for proposed flats
An acoustic assessment and bin and recycling details were necessary for satisfactory conditions in the proposed flats.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify a marked daylight loss at a bedroom window?
- Does it explain any substantial loss of outlook for a neighbour?
- Are acoustic, bin or recycling details said to be needed?
The density dismissal is at this issue’s edge and does not explain the living-condition harm. 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
20 February 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
prior notification (Class G – (a)) for the change of use from commercial (Class E) to a mixed use comprised of commercial space and 2no. self-contained flats. Appeal C Reference: 6000696 [site address]
Issue identified by the Inspector
The four main issues are: firstly, whether the public benefits of the proposals would outweigh any harm to the significance of the listed building at [site address] and/or the CA (appeals A, B4 and C); secondly, whether proposed flat No. 2 results in the proposal falling within the scope of permitted development rights (appeal B only); thirdly, whether the proposal would provide adequate living conditions for occupiers of the proposed flats, having particular regard to any noise disturbance from neighbouring commercial premises and the proposed bin/waste storage arrangements (appeal C only) and; fourthly, whether the proposed development would be likely, in combination with other plans or projects, to result in a significant effect upon the integrity of the SPA and, if so, whether there is a mechanism in place to mitigate any likely adverse effect (appeal C only). 1 The LPA has not identified any harm, arising as a consequence of the proposals, to the heritage interest (significance) of this adjoining conservation area. 2 The LPA has not identified any harm to this designated heritage asset and there is nothing to indicate any likely adverse impact. 3 Interested parties have also been afforded an opportunity of commenting upon the proposals/both sets of drawings. 4 Whilst the LPA’s reason for refusal does not allege harm to these designated heritage assets, it is evident from the officer’s report that the LPA has similar concerns (bin storage) to those raised in respect of appeal C. Appeal Decisions 6000694, 6000695 and 6000696
Paragraph 8 · Source pages 2, 3
Reasoning from the decision
As found above, conditions requiring the submission/approval of an acoustic assessment and the submission of further details for bin/recycling facilities would be necessary to ensure satisfactory living conditions for occupiers of the flats.
Paragraph 36 · Source page 7
2 February 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
demolition of existing single-storey rear extension and construction of two-storey rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; and the effect on the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring properties taking particular account of light, outlook and privacy.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the reasons set out above I conclude the proposal would not have such a harmful effect on the living conditions of occupiers of adjoining properties so as to justify withholding planning permission. I find no conflict with those parts of Saved Policy DG4 of the LP, or those principles of the Framework which seek to ensure a high standard of amenity and which allows residents to feel at ease within their homes and gardens.
Paragraph 20 · Source page 4
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
2 February 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
balustrade to existing flat roof on rear extension to form balcony at first floor level.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of future occupiers of Nos 34 and [address], having regard to privacy.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
However, given the impact on No [address]’s living conditions, I find the level of harm resulting from the proposal would be significant and conflict with policy DG4 of the Exeter Local Plan First Review 1995-2011 (ELPFR). Amongst other things, this requires that developments ensure a quality of amenity which allows residents to feel at ease within their homes and gardens.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
4 December 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
rear ground floor extension, alteration to existing roofs including replacing and raising ridge of primary roof structure, alteration to front porch, replacement windows, new windows, internal alterations.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers at [address], with particular regard to daylight and outlook.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Parts of the proposal would not affect the living conditions in the neighbouring property. However, taken together the changes would lead to a marked reduction in daylight reaching the bedroom window at No 23 and a substantial deterioration in its outlook, resulting in an unacceptable impact on living conditions and diminishing enjoyment of the property. For these reasons I conclude that the proposed development would unacceptably harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers at [address], with particular regard to daylight and outlook. This would conflict with Saved Policy DG4 of the Exeter Local Plan First Review, which, amongst other matters, seeks to ensure a quality of amenity which allows residents to feel at ease within their homes and gardens.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
12 February 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
outline application for redevelopment for 5 no. dwellings with all matters reserved except access (all matters relating to scale, layout, external appearance and landscaping reserved for future consideration).
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: whether or not satisfactory living conditions would be provided for future occupiers of the proposed dwellings with particular regard to outdoor amenity space, outlook and privacy; the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring properties with particular regard to outlook and privacy; and whether or not the density of development would be appropriate for the site.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude the density of development would not be appropriate for the site and would not amount to good design. There would be conflict with [name] H2 and DG4(a) in these respects. There would also be conflict with the principles of the Framework that require effective use of land but only where healthy living conditions are provided.
Paragraph 24 · Source page 4