London Borough of Haringey appeal evidence
Refused over neighbours’ living conditions in Haringey?
See local examples where noise, neighbour harm and impractical refuse storage affected decisions.
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 114
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 10
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 20
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 25
- 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: Haringey LPA (51.590373, −0.10744). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
London Borough of Haringey appeal findings
Haringey examples on neighbour noise and bins
Most selected examples give only the Inspector’s conclusion, and one concerns refuse storage for future occupants.
Counted against appeals
Concerns in Haringey dismissals
Noise left unresolved
The extract concludes that the loft proposal would harm neighbours through noise and disturbance. It says noise impacts needed assessment and mitigation.
Noise from tyre fitting
The tyre-fitting use was concluded to cause unacceptable noise harm to neighbouring occupiers. The extract refers to measures to mitigate and manage those effects.
Bins beside flat entrances
Internal bin stores appeared too small and difficult to access. Placing general waste beside flat entrances could harm occupants’ living conditions.
Helped or needed
Allowed rear extension example
Living conditions preserved
For the rear extension, the Inspector concluded that neighbouring occupants’ living conditions would be preserved. The extract does not explain why.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify noise, disturbance or another neighbour effect?
- Do your plans assess and mitigate the noise effect identified?
- Could your bin storage be too small or difficult to use?
The selected allowed example is a rear extension and gives no reasoning beyond its 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
26 March 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a basement and ground floor rear extension and resubmission of the first-floor extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are i) the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring occupants; ii) the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; and iii) whether a suitable standard of accommodation would be provided.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Therefore, I conclude that the proposal would preserve the living conditions of neighbouring occupants. No conflict arises with Policy SP11 of the Haringey Local Plan Strategic Policies (March 2013) (the Local Plan) or Policies DM1 and DM12 of the Haringey Development Management Development Plan Document (July
Paragraph 13 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
10 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the construction of a new loft extension, including the addition of a rear dormer to be in line with the loft extension at [address], new windows, rooflights to the new flat roof and rooflights to the front roof slope. The pitched roof to the front and the turret will be replaced. The existing chimney stacks will be removed. Condenser units for AC will be installed on the roof.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; and • The effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to noise.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Accordingly, I find that the proposal would fail to safeguard the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to noise and disturbance. The proposal would therefore conflict with Policy D14 of the London Plan (2021), which seeks to avoid significant adverse noise impacts, Policy SP11 of the Haringey Local Plan (2017), and Policies DM1 and DM23 of the Haringey Development Management DPD (2017), which require development to protect residential amenity and demonstrate that noise impacts are appropriately assessed and mitigated.
Paragraph 15 · Source page 3
2 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
change of use of land from car sales (sui generis) to tyre fitting (B2).
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • The effects of the development on the character and appearance of the area, including the locally listed No. 677 Green Lanes; • The effects of the development on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to the levels of noise which would arise from it; and • The effects of the development on highway safety, with particular regard to pedestrians and cyclists.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Therefore, I conclude that the effects of the development on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to the levels of noise which would arise from it, would be unacceptably harmful. As a result, the development conflicts with LP Policy D13 and DMDPD Policy DM1. Together, in summary and amongst other matters, these Policies require developments to achieve a high standard of amenity for neighbouring occupiers, address any issues of noise likely to arise and put in place measures to mitigate and manage their noise-related effects. Furthermore, the development conflicts with policy contained at paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework which sets out that developments should ensure a high standard of amenity and should promote health and well-being.
Paragraph 17 · Source page 3
7 May 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
an L shaped loft conversion with roof lights on front roof slope pursuant to applications HGY/2025/1128 and HGY/2025/1123.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: • The character and appearance of the appeal dwelling and the setting of a listed building; and • The living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the reasons set out above, I find that the proposal would result in substantial harm to the character and appearance of the appeal dwelling, less than substantial harm to the setting of the [name] listed [address] and substantial harm to the living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers. This would be contrary to Policies SP11 and SP12 of the Haringey’s Local Plan Strategic Policies 2013-2026 (2017) and Policies DM1, DM9 and DM12 of the Haringey Development Management Development Plan Document (2017). Collectively these seek development that, amongst other matters, is of a high standard of design that respects the architectural characteristics of the original building and its local context, ensures the conservation of the setting of listed buildings and ensures a high standard of amenity for neighbours.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 3
14 April 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the erection of an additional floor to create one flat.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • the living conditions of neighbouring residents, with particular regard to outlook, privacy and daylight; and • the character and appearance of the area and the living conditions of occupants of properties at the appeal site, with particular regard to refuse storage.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The submitted plans show two proposed internal bin store areas at ground floor level beside the main entrance to the property and the front doors to the flats. The existing space in this area comprises a small closet and a more open space that was used for storage. From the information before me, the proposed storage areas would not appear to be of sufficient size to accommodate the relevant bin types. Access to these areas would also be problematic, as manoeuvring bins up and down the stepped entrance and in such a confined space would be difficult and likely render the arrangement impractical. Siting general waste internally and adjacent to the flat entrances would further increase the potential for harm to the living conditions of occupants. I therefore have no satisfactory information before me to demonstrate that a suitable scheme could be achieved internally.
Paragraph 15 · Source page 3