Great Yarmouth Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over neighbours’ living conditions in Great Yarmouth?
See the selected examples on outlook, noise and outdoor space, and facts to check against 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
- 9 of 19
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 4
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 5
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 5
- of 9 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: Great Yarmouth LPA (52.637691, 1.67295). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Great Yarmouth Borough Council appeal findings
Great Yarmouth outlook, noise and outdoor space
Example 85959 concerns HMO occupants rather than neighbours, while dismissed 52253 finds no neighbour harm; neither extract explains its outcome on this issue.
Counted against appeals
Rear-extension outlook harm
Harmful loss of outlook
The two-storey rear extension was found to cause a loss of outlook harmful to No 2’s occupiers.
Helped or needed
Noise and outdoor-space conclusions
No unacceptable noise effect
For the dog-walking facility, the inspector concluded nearby occupants would not face an unacceptable noise effect.
External space not harmful
The inspector concluded the rear extension would not harm living conditions regarding external living-space provision.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify whose outlook would be harmed?
- Does it set out expected noise at nearby homes?
- Does it explain whether usable outdoor space remains?
The displayed passages are conclusions only, so they omit the inspectors’ detailed 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
2 examples
20 March 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a change of use from agricultural field to dog walking facility, including fences, gates, hedges and field shelter.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in this appeal are the effect of the proposed development on: • best and most versatile agricultural land; and • the living conditions of nearby occupants, with particular regard to noise.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the above reasons, I therefore conclude that the appeal scheme would not have an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of nearby occupants, with particular regard to noise. This complies with Policy CS9 of the [name], Policy A1 of the LPP2 and Policy HEC7 of the emerging Local Plan insofar as they seek to protect the amenity of existing residents.
Paragraph 18 · Source page 4
9 April 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
described as a single storey rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the development on the living conditions of existing and future occupiers of the site with particular regard to external living space provision.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the above reasons, I conclude that the development would not have a harmful effect on the living conditions of existing and future occupiers of the site with particular regard to external living space provision. Therefore, the development complies with Policies A1 and H9 of the [site address] Local Plan Part 2 (2021). Together, amongst other things, these require that development does not lead to an unacceptable impact on the amenities of existing development and that it does not deprive the existing property of suitable amenity.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
16 March 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
change of use from a 6-bedroom C3 Dwellinghouse to a 6-bedroom, 6-person C4 House in [name], removal of rear chimney and window alterations.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • whether the development protects occupants from the effects of flood risk; • the effect of the development on the living conditions of occupants of the HMO regarding the amount and quality of space; and • whether appropriate bin storage facilities have been provided.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For these reasons, I conclude that the development provides adequate living conditions for occupants of the HMO, regarding the amount and quality of space. Accordingly, it complies with CS Policy CS9 and [name] H12 and A1, which, amongst other things, seek to support HMO accommodation where it provides for the well-being of its occupants and ensure development is of high quality that protects the amenity of future residents.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 3
11 June 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
an annex ancillary to main dwelling.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: (i) Whether the proposed annex would be ancillary to the main dwelling or a separate independent dwelling unit (ii) The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area (iii) The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of adjacent dwellings (iv) The effect of the proposal on designated wildlife sites
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
In conclusion therefore, there would be no harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of nearby dwellings from the proposal. Consequently, there would be no conflict with the aims of Policy A1 of the LP and Policy CS9 of the CS, where they seek to safeguard living conditions.
Paragraph 15 · Source page 3
15 March 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the erection of a two-storey rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in this appeal are the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area and the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], with particular regard to outlook and sunlight.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Therefore, the proposal would result in a loss of outlook that would harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No 2. It would therefore not conform with Policies A1 and H9 of the [site address] Local Plan Part 2 (adopted December 2021), which together require development to not adversely affect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers, including from buildings and structures that will be overbearing. It would also not accord with Policy CS9 of the [site address] Local Plan: [name] 2013-2030 (adopted December 2015), which seeks to protect the amenity of residents near proposed development.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 3