Gedling Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over a neighbour's privacy or outlook in Gedling?
Learn which privacy and outlook conclusions appear in selected Gedling examples before comparing your refusal notice.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 10 of 50
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 3
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 7
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 10
- of 10 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: Gedling LPA (53.028415, −1.119366). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Gedling Borough Council appeal findings
Gedling decisions on privacy and outlook
The selected examples include both outcomes but a higher share of allowed decisions than the matched local set. Several extracts state only conclusions.
Counted against appeals
Gedling privacy and outlook harm
Privacy loss at two homes
The proposal was found to cause significant privacy harm to the appeal property and No 6.
Outlook harm to named neighbours
Inspectors concluded that the schemes would harm the outlook of occupiers of No 2a and No 9.
Helped or needed
Allowed outlook findings in Gedling
No outlook harm at The Brambles
The garage extension was found not to cause unacceptable outlook harm to occupiers of The Brambles.
No material annexe amenity harm
The side extension was found not to materially harm future occupiers' outlook or private amenity space.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the notice say whose privacy would be lost?
- Does it say whose outlook would be harmed?
- Does it separate effects on neighbours from future occupants?
Appeal 29058 concerns future annexe occupiers, so it is an edge-of-scope comparison. 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
1 March 2023 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
described on the application form as “Renewal of a previously granted Planning Permission for an Annex, & extension of existing garage” but more accurately on the Council’s decision notice as “Two-storey side extension to the NE elevation to create an annexe and single storey extension to existing garage”.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether the use of the 2-storey side extension may be considered as a residential annexe ancillary to the use of the host dwelling, or whether a separate dwelling would be created and allied to that matter, the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the site and the surroundings and on the living conditions of future occupiers of the 2-storey side extension, with particular regard to outlook and private amenity space.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
I find on the main issue that the 2-storey side extension may be considered as a residential annexe ancillary to the use of the host dwelling and that its effect on the character and appearance of the site and the surroundings and on the living conditions of future occupiers, with particular regard to outlook and private amenity space, would not give rise to any material harm. The relevant design criteria in Policy 10 of the Gedling Borough Aligned Core Strategy 2014, Policy BE2 of the Calverton Neighbourhood Plan 2017, [name] 32, LPD 34, LPD 35 and LPD 43 of the Local Planning Document 2018 (LPD) and the National Planning Policy Framework would be respected. LPD Policy LPD 40 seems to be aimed at schemes for unrestricted new build residential developments; it has had limited relevance to my findings about this annexe.
Paragraph 16 · Source page 4
12 January 2023 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a first floor extension to existing garage to form games room.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of the Brambles, with regard to outlook.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore find that the proposal would not result in any unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of The Brambles, with regard to outlook. As such, there would be no conflict with Policy LPD 32 of the Gedling Local Plan ([name] 2018) or the National Planning Policy Framework which, in Part 12, seeks to achieve well designed places. There would also be no conflict with Policy 10 of the [name] Local Plan ([name] 2014) which also seeks, amongst other things to assess the impact of development on the amenity of nearby residents or occupiers.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
23 May 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
Loft conversion with dormer roof to the rear and raise ridge line of dwelling. Conversion of garage to ancillary domestic accommodation and skylights to the garage.
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 privacy.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposal would therefore cause significant harm to the occupiers of both the appeal property and No 6 through a loss of privacy. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policy 10 of the [name] Part 1 Local Plan (2014) and [name] 32 and LPD 43 of the Gedling Borough Local Planning Document Part 2 Local Plan (2018), insofar as they require development to not cause a significant adverse impact on the living conditions of nearby residents and occupiers, including through overlooking.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
29 January 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
two storey side extension and single storey rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: a) the character and appearance of the area; and b) the living conditions of occupiers of [address] (No 2a), with particular regard to outlook.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Therefore, for the reasons given, and in the particular circumstances of this case, the appeal scheme would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of occupiers of No 2a, with particular regard to outlook. It would therefore conflict with Policies 32 and 43 of the Part 2 LP which require development proposals to not cause significant adverse impacts on the amenity of nearby occupiers. It would also conflict with the Framework which seeks a high standard of amenity for existing users.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
4 November 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
first floor addition added to existing ground floor extension. Increase bedroom size.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers No [address] (No 9) with particular regard to outlook, sunlight and daylight.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the above reasons, the proposed development would unacceptably harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No 9 with regard to outlook. It would fail to accord with Policies LPD32 and LPD43 of the Gedling Borough Local Planning Document Part 2 Local Plan 2018. These seek, amongst other things, to prevent significant adverse impacts on nearby occupiers. It would also be contrary to the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework, which seeks amongst other things, development to provide a high standard of amenity.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2