London Borough of Hackney appeal evidence
Refused over neighbour living conditions in Hackney?
Learn what the selected examples say about privacy, outlook, light and HMO living conditions.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 30 of 165
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 5
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 23
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 27
- of 30 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: Hackney LPA (51.55227, −0.063291). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
London Borough of Hackney appeal findings
Hackney privacy, light and HMO conditions
The selected examples lean more toward dismissals than the matched local set, and the allowed reasoning is conclusion-only.
Counted against appeals
Staircase position, light and HMO conditions
Proposed staircase was not comparable
The proposed staircase position was not comparable with the existing staircase. Amendments and possible conditions did not change the Inspector's conclusion of harm to neighbours’ living conditions.
Outlook and light harm
The wraparound extension was found harmful to an occupier’s outlook and light, though another occupier would not be harmed in those respects.
HMO living conditions unsuitable
The Inspector concluded that the HMO proposal would fail to provide suitable living conditions for future occupiers.
Helped or needed
No unacceptable effect in window case
Opaque glass-block window and shutter
The Inspector concluded that it would not have an unacceptable effect on a neighbour’s living conditions. The extract gives no further reasons.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal distinguish your proposal from the existing arrangement?
- Does it identify the neighbour affected by outlook or light?
- For an HMO, does it say why future living conditions are unsuitable?
The temporary event-space example sits at this issue’s edge and gives only a no-harm conclusion. 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
24 July 2024 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
the installation of a window comprised of opaque glass blocks and a roller shutter.
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 light pollution and privacy.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the reasons set out above I conclude that the proposal would not have an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No.16. The proposal therefore accords with Policy LP2 of the Hackney Local Plan (2020) which, amongst other matters, states that development should be designed to ensure there are no significant adverse impacts on the amenity of neighbours. I also find no conflict with Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021).
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
30 March 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as the formation of a single storey extension to the side of the rear addition of the ground floor flat (No28b); including the removal of a defective external timber staircase and replacing with a new metal staircase with limited walkway across the new "flat" roof, to provide access from the upper flat (28a) to the shared rear garden. New extension to accommodate new kitchen, with flat becoming a two-bedroom flat. Limited work to basement to limited storage space.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] (No 30) with particular regard to privacy.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
It is not disputed that the replacement of the existing staircase on a like-for like basis could occur. However, this is not what is being applied for, and the position of the proposed staircase is not comparable to that of the existing staircase. Therefore, whilst I have had regard to this as a ‘fallback position’, it does not alter my above findings. Furthermore, I acknowledge that the appellant has sought to work proactively with the Council by providing amendments and being agreeable to the imposition of planning conditions. Nevertheless, this does not alter my conclusions on the harmful effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers.
Paragraph 15 · Source page 3
19 May 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
for the change of use from a 6-bed HMO (Class C4) to a 7-bed HMO (Sui-Generis).
Issue identified by the Inspector
These are whether the proposal would provide: a) suitable living conditions for the future occupiers, b) affordable rent levels and car free developments, having regard to the
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Therefore, the proposal would fail to provide suitable living conditions for the future occupiers, conflicting with Policies LP2 and LP22 of the Hackney Local Plan 2033 (July 2020), which seek to ensure that HMOs are well designed and of good quality, providing a good standard of accommodation and designed to ensure there are no significant adverse impacts on the amenity of occupiers.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
30 April 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
erection of a single storey ground floor wrap around rear extension including a Sukkah rooflight
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: the character and appearance of the host dwelling and area; the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with specific regard to outlook and light; and the personal circumstances of the occupiers of the appeal property.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Therefore, the proposal would result in harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] with regard to outlook and light but would not harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No 87 in these respects. Nevertheless, the proposal would conflict with Policy D6 of the London Plan (2021) and Policy LP2 of the Hackney Local Plan (2020) which both seek, amongst other things, for all new development to be appropriate to its location and designed to ensure there are no significant adverse impacts on the amenity of occupiers and neighbours.
Paragraph 15 · Source page 3
15 April 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as temporary use of land (2 years) at the former church as a sui generis event and exhibition space (maximum number of attendees to be 400, hours of opening: Mon to Thurs 09:00-22:30, Fri to Sat 09:00-23:30 and Sun 10:00-22:00).
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • whether the proposed use could be operated safely in relation to fire risk; • whether the proposed use would preserve a [name] listed building; • the effects of the proposed use on the living conditions of occupants of adjacent dwellings, and on users of [address] in relation to noise and disturbance; • the effects of the proposed use on the highway network; and • whether the use could operate with inclusive access.
Paragraph 6 · Source pages 1, 2
Reasoning from the decision
Representations were also made to the effect that the rights of nearby residents under Article 8 as set out in the Human Rights Act 1998 would be violated by noise generated by the proposed use. Again, my findings above indicate that the proposed use would not cause unacceptable harm to living conditions. Were the appeal to be allowed this would not unacceptably interfere with the right of the residents in question to a private and family life and home, and this would therefore be proportionate.
Paragraph 27 · Source page 5