London Borough of Harrow appeal evidence
Refused over neighbour living conditions in Harrow?
See which local appeal extracts raise privacy, enclosure, noise and disturbance issues, and what supported a commercial-use allowance.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 85 of 269
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 30
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 54
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 77
- of 86 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: Harrow LPA (51.597723, −0.341248). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
London Borough of Harrow appeal findings
Harrow examples: privacy, noise and enclosure
The allowed example is commercial use, and another dismissed extract concerns future occupants rather than neighbours.
Counted against appeals
Harrow privacy, noise and enclosure objections
Raised patios can overlook rear gardens
The terrace’s height and scale enabled direct views into a rear garden and harmed privacy.
Noise and privacy outweighed outlook
An HMO conclusion found neighbour noise and disturbance harmful. A conversion conclusion found privacy, noise and disturbance unacceptable despite acceptable outlook.
Extension bulk caused enclosure
A rear extension’s cumulative bulk created enclosure. Good natural light did not outweigh that harm.
Helped or needed
Noise evidence for a gaming centre
No convincing case against 24-hour opening
The Inspector found no convincing evidence that 24-hour opening would unreasonably harm nearby residents through noise or general disturbance.
Evening activity was already expected
Nearby residents in a commercial area could reasonably expect some evening and nighttime noise and disturbance.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify direct overlooking into a named garden or window?
- Would a privacy screen itself create enclosure for neighbours?
- What evidence addresses noise and disturbance at the proposed hours and use?
The HMO and flat-conversion extracts give conclusions without the earlier assessment. 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
23 June 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
use of ground floor as an adult gaming centre (sui generis); no external alterations.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue of the appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of neighbouring properties with particular regard to noise and general disturbance.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Whilst the previous permission allowed on appeal is no longer valid and thus non determinative, as the building to which it was attached was demolished and the site redeveloped, the Inspector did consider noise and disturbance and considered that the proposal would not give rise to an unacceptable level of noise and disturbance. The Inspector also concluded that residents living in a commercial area might reasonably expect to experience some noise and disturbance because of evening and nighttime activities. The Inspector explained that there is no convincing evidence to indicate that it would be necessary or reasonable to prevent a 24-hour opening to protect the living conditions of the occupiers of nearby residential properties due to noise and general disturbance. The Planning Inspectorate has already therefore given consideration to the appropriateness of an adult gaming centre at this location and considered it to be acceptable.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
26 February 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a retrospective application for retention of raised patio and steps.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this case is the effect of the development on the living conditions of the occupiers of Number [address], with regards to privacy.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The topography of the area is such that, in order to avoid significant stepping down from the ground floor of the dwelling, the terrace sits considerably higher than the remaining garden area. This combines with its scale to present a visually prominent terrace. 10.During my site visit, I observed that the overall height and scale of the terrace provides significant opportunities for direct overlooking, most notably over the rear garden of Number [address]. In this respect, there is scope for direct overlooking into No 110’s rear garden from various parts of the large terrace. I find that this results in significant harm to the privacy of the occupiers of No 110. 11.Whilst the appellant, in support of the appeal, suggests that fencing might mitigate harm to privacy, I note that the combined height, width and projection of the terrace is such that very tall fencing would be required in order to protect the reasonable privacy of the occupiers of No 110. I find that any such fencing, due to its need to be very tall, would inevitably loom above the rear of No 110 and that this would result in an undue sense of enclosure. 12.Taking all of the above into account, I find that the development harms the living conditions of the occupiers of Number [address], with regards to privacy, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; to London Plan Policy D3; and to DMP1 Policy DM1, which together amongst other things, seek to protect residential amenity.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
15 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a material change of use from a C4 small HMO (up to 6 occupants) to a sui generis large HMO (up to 10 occupants), with no external or internal alterations.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • whether the appeal site is a suitable location for the proposal, having regard to relevant development plan policy concerning Houses in [name] (HMOs); • whether satisfactory living conditions would be provided for occupants of the HMO, with particular regard to the adequacy of the communal internal space and noise and disturbance; and • the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupants of neighbouring properties, with particular reference to noise and disturbance.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore conclude that the proposal would cause harm to the living conditions of the occupants of the neighbouring properties, with particular reference to noise and disturbance. It would therefore conflict with Local Plan Policies HO10 and GR1 and London Plan Policies D3 and D14. Collectively these seek to ensure that, amongst other things, proposals do not result in a harmful impact on the amenity of occupiers of neighbouring properties, they help prevent or mitigate the impacts of noise and they achieve indoor and outdoor environments that are comfortable and inviting for people to use.
Paragraph 18 · Source page 4
11 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
conversion of first and second floor flat to three flats, two storey rear extension, two storey rear dormer, single storey rear extension and part conversion of ground floor shop to provide 1 self-contained flat (use class C3), bin and cycle stores and external alterations.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether the proposed development would provide acceptable living conditions for the future occupants of the ground floor flat, having particular regard to privacy, outlook, noise and disturbance.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Whilst the National Planning Policy Framework sets out that decisions should promote an effective use of land in meeting the need for homes, including building on service yards, paragraph 124 states that this should also ensure healthy living conditions. Whilst the proposed development would provide an acceptable level of outlook, it would fail to provide acceptable living conditions in respect of privacy and due to noise and disturbance, and this harm would be significantly felt by future occupants of the ground floor flat. I afford this harm significant weight and, when balancing this against the benefits of the proposal, it would not be outweighed.
Paragraph 19 · Source page 4
5 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
Proposed single-storey rear extension (Retrospective).
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the development on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupants of [address] (No. 21), with particular regard to outlook and light.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
While the gardens are south-facing, and therefore benefit from good levels of natural light, this does not outweigh the harm arising from the sense of enclosure created by the cumulative bulk of the extension. The development would therefore result in an unacceptable reduction in the quality of living conditions for the occupants of No. 21.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 2