Hart District Council appeal evidence
Refused over neighbour outlook in Hart?
See what selected Hart appeals say about outlook, enclosure and overbearing extensions, and where the dismissed extracts leave gaps.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 16 of 96
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 10
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 6
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 14
- of 16 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: Hart LPA (51.284839, −0.897443). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Hart District Council appeal findings
Neighbour outlook and enclosure in Hart extensions
The selected examples have a different outcome mix from the matched local set. Dismissed extracts give no direct neighbour concern: one is a character conclusion and one concerns an oak tree.
Counted against appeals
Dismissed extracts lack neighbour reasoning
No outlook or enclosure reason
Appeal 81959’s extract concludes that the proposal harmed area character. Appeal 66161’s extract concerns oak-rooting evidence, not neighbour outlook, light or enclosure.
Helped or needed
Allowed conclusions on neighbour effects
No unacceptable outlook harm
Appeal 86925 concludes the first-floor extension would not be overbearing or unacceptably harm No. 7’s outlook.
No oppressive enclosure
Appeal 50687 concludes the extension would cause neither undue outlook loss nor an oppressive sense of enclosure.
Adjacent dwellings not harmed
Appeal 50784 concludes the two-storey rear extension would not harm adjacent dwellings’ living conditions.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify outlook, light, enclosure or overbearing effects?
- Which neighbouring home is said to be affected, and how?
- Does the notice explain what evidence would address the claimed harm?
The displayed dismissed excerpts do not explain neighbour-living effects, so this review cannot show the local reasoning behind a dismissed neighbour-living appeal. 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
3 examples
1 April 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
[name] and [name] and window improvements.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed first floor extension on the living conditions for the occupiers of No. [address] as regards outlook.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
On balance, I take the view that the proposed projection would not be overbearing and that the living conditions for the occupiers of No. 7 in respect of outlook would not be unacceptably harmed by the proposed first floor extension. Accordingly, there would be no conflict with saved Policy GEN1 of the Hart Local Plan (Replacement) 2006; Policy NBE9 of the Hart Local Plan (Strategy and Sites) 2032 and Government policy in the National Planning Policy Framework 2024.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
9 May 2024 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
described on the application form as a “two storey rear extension”.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this appeal is the effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of the adjacent dwellings at 2 and [address], with regard to whether the development would appear overbearing.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the above reasons, it is concluded that the living conditions of the occupiers of the adjacent dwellings would not be harmed. The proposal would accord with the aim of Hart Local Plan (Replacement) 1996-2006 [name], Policy GEN 1 to avoid any material loss of amenity to adjoining residential uses.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
8 May 2024 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
the erection of a two storey side and rear extension following demolition of existing single storey rear element, erection of a porch and other alterations, together with landscaping in the rear garden.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: - For appeal A, the effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of the adjacent dwelling at [address] with regard to whether the extension would appear overbearing. - For Appeal B, the effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling, locality and the streetscene. Appeal Decisions APP/N1730/D/23/3335933 & APP/N1730/D/24/3339055
Paragraph 5 · Source pages 2, 3
Reasoning from the decision
In consequence, there would be no undue reduction in outlook and no oppressive sense of enclosure. In consequence the proposed development in Appeal A would not appear overbearing. As a result, the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring dwelling would not be harmed.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
2 examples
19 December 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
erection of a self-build replacement dwelling to be occupied by the applicants following demolition of the existing dwelling and attached garage.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; and • The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of No. [address] (No.59) and No [address] (No. 55) with particular regard to outlook and light.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For these reasons, I conclude that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore conflict with Policy GEN 1 of the Hart Local Plan (Replacement) 1996 – 2006 [name] (adopted April 2009 (LP), Policy NBE9 of the Hart Local Plan (Strategy and Sites) 2032 (adopted April 2020) and Policy 10 of the Fleet Neighbourhood Plan 2018 – 2032 ([name] 2019). Together these seek to ensure that development proposals achieve a high standard of design and are in keeping with local character in terms of scale, design, massing and prominence. Living conditions [address]
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
13 March 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
erection of a two-storey front infill extension and front porch. Alterations to existing roof and fenestration.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The Council raises no objections to the appeal proposal in terms of the design of the front infill extension or its effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. Furthermore, there are no objections to the proposed alterations to the roof and fenestration. There are no reasons to disagree.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The site investigation could confirm the acceptability of the proposals in this regard or could find that further loss of rooting area and pressure on the oak’s RPA would be unacceptable. It appears to me unlikely that these effects, if identified, could be mitigated within the curtilage of No 10 or elsewhere due to constraints around the site. Therefore, further evidence is required to convincingly demonstrate that the proposed works would not push the tree beyond an acceptable tolerance of further disturbance and alteration of its growing conditions.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 2