Gravesham Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over a neighbour’s outlook in Gravesham?
Compare the selected examples with the facts behind 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
- 36 of 150
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 10
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 25
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 30
- of 36 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: Gravesham LPA (51.404032, 0.396763). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Gravesham Borough Council appeal findings
Outlook, disturbance and outdoor private space
The displayed examples have more dismissals than the matched local set. The allowed reasoning concerns outdoor private space at the appeal property, not effects on neighbours.
Counted against appeals
Outlook and disturbance concerns
Glazing did not resolve outlook
The Inspector said glazed screening was unlikely to reduce natural light but would still harm a neighbour’s outlook.
HMO and extensions harmed outlook
The second-floor HMO proposal and dwelling alterations were both found harmful to neighbours’ outlook.
More activity caused disturbance
A nine-bedroom HMO proposal was found to create an unacceptable increase in noise and disturbance for neighbouring occupiers.
Helped or needed
Private space for occupants
Private outdoor space was adequate
The allowed rear extension was considered to provide acceptable private amenity space for existing and future occupiers.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify harm to outlook, not daylight alone?
- Would your proposal increase noise or disturbance for neighbouring occupiers?
- Does the proposal leave adequate private outdoor space for occupants?
The selected examples give no allowed comparison for neighbour outlook or disturbance. 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
18 June 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
described on the application form as “proposed single storey rear extension”.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether the proposal would provide acceptable living conditions for the existing and future occupiers of the appeal property, with regard to the provision of external private amenity space.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Overall, the proposal would provide acceptable living conditions for the existing and future occupiers of the appeal property, with regard to the provision of external private amenity space. It would therefore accord with Policy CS19 of Gravesham Local Plan Core Strategy (adopted in 2014). Amongst other matters, this policy seeks to ensure new development safeguards the amenity of its occupants and provides appropriate levels of private amenity space.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
31 December 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as Proposed application for additional screening to decking.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the impact of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], with particular reference to outlook and the perception of loss of privacy.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Given its height and glazed material, which would allow some light to pass through it, the proposal would be unlikely to result in a harmful loss of natural light to the neighbouring occupiers. Nevertheless, for the above reasons, I conclude that the proposal would harm the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], with particular reference to outlook. I therefore find that it would conflict with Policy CS19 of the Gravesham Local Plan Core Strategy (2014). Amongst other aspects, this seeks to protect the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring properties. The proposal would also conflict with the principles of the Framework that seek good design which provides a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
17 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the demolition of existing garage, erection of a two-storey side extension and conversion of dwelling (use class C3) into a 9-bedroom House in [name] (sui generis).
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in both appeals are: • the effect of the proposals on the character and appearance of the area; • the effect of the proposals on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers; and • the effect of the proposals on the [name] and Marshes Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar site. Appeal Decisions 6003145, 6005180
Paragraph 3 · Source pages 1, 2
Reasoning from the decision
Taking these matters together, I find that both proposals would result in an unacceptable increase in noise and disturbance to neighbouring occupiers and would therefore harm their living conditions. The proposals would conflict with Policy CS19 of the [name] insofar as it seeks to ensure that proposals safeguard the amenity of occupants of neighbouring properties.
Paragraph 21 · Source page 4
20 May 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
erection of second floor extension and change of use of first floor from accommodation above public house to 6 x 1 bed HMO.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: • The character and appearance of the area. • The living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, with particular regard to outlook and light.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Taking all matters into account, the development would harm the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring properties at Nos. 19 and [address] in terms of outlook. The proposal would therefore conflict with Policy CS19 of the Local Plan, Council’s Design for [name] (2024) and [name]/ [name] (2021), which seek to ensure that extensions are in keeping with the design of the host building and its surroundings in terms of scale, height and massing, and avoid harm to outlook.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 2
19 February 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as alterations & extensions to existing dwelling.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: • the living conditions of the occupiers of 47 and [address], with particular regard to outlook and privacy; and • the character and appearance of the host property and surrounding area, with due regard to the location of the site in the [address]/[address] Conservation Area (CA).
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
However, for the above reasons, I conclude that the proposal would harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No 47 with particular reference to outlook. I therefore find that it would conflict with policy CS19 of the Gravesham Local Plan Core Strategy (2014) (Local Plan). Amongst other aspects, this seeks to safeguard the amenity of occupiers of neighbouring properties. There would also be conflict with paragraph 135 f) of the Framework which states that developments should create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.
Paragraph 12 · Source pages 2, 3