Gloucester City Council appeal evidence
Refused over neighbour living conditions in Gloucester?
See what the selected Gloucester examples say about neighbour effects and which facts to compare with 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
- 23 of 47
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 8
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 14
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 20
- of 23 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: Gloucester LPA (51.849383, −2.240253). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Gloucester City Council appeal findings
Gloucester patio distance and overlooking evidence
Some selected extracts give only a conclusion on neighbour living conditions, not the analysis behind it.
Counted against appeals
No stated neighbour-harm concern
No concern stated
The HMO, floating-platform and extension extracts either say requirements were met or no harm was found. None states a neighbour-harm concern.
Helped or needed
Patio distance and overlooking
Patio distance and open gardens
For the rear extension, separation from the neighbour’s patio and open rear gardens supported a finding of no significant or visually harmful effect.
No unacceptable overlooking harm
The Inspector found no unacceptable harm to No 106’s living conditions from overlooking.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify overlooking, overshadowing, overbearing development, noise, or another neighbour effect?
- What separation is shown between your proposal and the neighbour’s patio?
- Does the refusal address the openness of the rear gardens?
Appeal 89155 concerns a floating platform and generator, so it 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
2 examples
5 June 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
the removal of an existing conservatory and the construction of a two- storey rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal upon the living conditions at [address], with particular regard to visual impact.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
When all of this is considered, along with the separation distance that would exist between the extension and the patio space to the rear of No 26, together with the open nature of the rear gardens in general along this part of [address], I am satisfied that there would be no impact upon the living conditions at No 26 that would be significant or that would be visually harmful. In these circumstances, I am unable to identify any conflict with the aims and objectives of the SPD, or with Policy SD14 of the Gloucester, Cheltenham and [name] (2017) or Policies A1 and A9 of the Gloucester City Plan (2023) as far as between them they seek to secure a quality in all development, including extensions to dwellings, that avoids any significant adverse impacts upon neighbouring occupiers.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 3
15 May 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a two storey side extension and outbuilding (garden /pool room) in the rear garden
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in the appeal are the effect of the proposal on (i) the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area and (ii) the living conditions of the neighbours at [address] (No 106) in terms of any overlooking.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Accordingly, I find that the proposal would not cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of No 106. It would therefore not conflict with the general design and general environmental policies set out in Policies SD4 and SD14 of the CS and Policy A9 of the GCP which seeks to safeguard the living conditions of neighbours.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
19 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the change of use from C3 dwelling to 7 bed HMO (sui generis). Proposed dormers to loft and single storey rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • The effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area; and • Whether the proposal would provide suitable living conditions for future occupants.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Consequently, the proposal would accord with the requirements of Policies SD4, SD10 and SD14 of the CS and Policy A1 of the GCP. These policies, amongst other things, seek to secure development that would protect the living conditions of future occupiers, provide outdoor amenity space, be well designed and support healthy living conditions. The proposal would also accord with the HMO Guidance.
Paragraph 15 · Source page 3
21 May 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
installation of floating platform adjacent to existing boat to provide additional seating. The proposal also includes parasols. A Sea Bin will be installed in the [name], subject to the future availability of an electricity supply, to assist in the reduction of plastic waste.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in this appeal are the effect of the proposal on: • the living conditions of residents of the [name], with specific regard to noise and disturbance arising from the use of the proposed outdoor seating area; and • the living conditions of occupants of nearby dwellings, with specific regard to the noise and emissions arising from the proposed generator.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Accordingly, for the reasons above, based on the evidence before me and my observations on site, noise and emissions arising from the proposed new generator would not harm the living conditions of occupants of nearby dwellings. The proposal would therefore accord with Policies SD4 and SD14 of the [name] and Policy B4 of the Local Plan in this regard.
Paragraph 23 · Source page 4
23 February 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the demolition of garage and erection of two storey extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the appeal site and the surrounding area; and, • the effect of the development on the living conditions of the occupants of [address].
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For these reasons, the development would not result in undue harm to the living conditions of the occupants of [address]. Accordingly, I find no conflict with Policy SD14 of the [name] or Policies A1 and A9 of the City Plan, which taken together seek to ensure that the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers are not unduly harmed by development as a result of overlooking, overshadowing, or overbearing development. Similarly, I find no conflict with advice in the SPD.
Paragraph 16 · Source page 3