London Borough of Havering appeal evidence
Refused over neighbour living conditions in Havering?
See what selected Havering examples found on neighbours’ outlook, privacy, daylight and sunlight.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 168 of 331
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 59
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 108
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 111
- of 168 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: Havering LPA (51.563125, 0.220447). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
London Borough of Havering appeal findings
Havering conclusions on outlook, privacy, daylight and sunlight
The selected examples include both outcomes, but their outcome mix differs from the matched local set. Their extracts give conclusions, not the reasoning behind them.
Counted against appeals
Havering concerns: outlook, privacy, daylight and sunlight
Outlook harm
The inspector concluded the development would unacceptably harm nearby occupiers’ outlook.
Privacy harm
The inspectors concluded the proposals would harm neighbours’ privacy.
Daylight and sunlight harm
The inspector concluded the proposal would harm daylight and sunlight for the occupiers of No 15.
Helped or needed
Havering examples with no privacy or outlook harm
No privacy harm found
The inspector concluded the scheme would not harm the occupiers’ privacy.
No outlook harm found
The inspector concluded the proposal would not cause unacceptable harm to neighbouring occupiers’ outlook.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does your refusal identify outlook, privacy, daylight or sunlight?
- Which neighbours does the refusal say would be affected?
- Does it set out the harm claimed for each neighbour?
The displayed Havering extracts do not show the assessment behind these outlook, privacy and light conclusions. 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
9 December 2024 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
No verified development description was available for this example.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the impact of the development on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] with regard to privacy.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore conclude that the scheme would not result in harm to the living conditions of the occupants of [address] in respect of privacy. It would be consistent with Policy 7 of the Havering Local Plan 2021 and the Council's Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document 2011 in relation to the protection of amenity.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
26 November 2024 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a single storey rear extension (6m x 5.5m).
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers at [address] with regard to outlook.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore conclude, for the reasons set out above, that the proposed development would not cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers at [address] with regard to outlook. As such, it would comply with Policy 7 of the Havering Local Plan 2016-2031, which seeks, amongst other matters, to protect the amenity of existing and future residents including in terms of outlook. Although the proposal would not comply with certain specific guidance within the SPD, it would not conflict with its aims, which amongst other matters, include maintaining a reasonable outlook from adjoining properties.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
22 August 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as single-storey rear extension, raising roof to include rear dormer.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the development on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], with particular regard to outlook and privacy.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore conclude that the development would unacceptably harm the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] specifically in relation to outlook. Thus, there is conflict with Policy 7 of the Havering Local Plan 2021, which seeks to protect residential amenity.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
3 June 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the erection of two storey, 5-bed detached dwelling with habitable roof space and amenity space, following demolition of existing dwelling without complying with a condition attached to planning permission Ref P1419.22, dated 21 December 2022.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties at 77 and [address] with particular regard to privacy.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude on this main issue that the proposal would be harmful to the living conditions of the occupiers of No [address] with particular regard to privacy. This would be contrary to Policies 7 and 26 of the Havering Local Plan 2016 – 2031, November 2021. The proposal would also conflict with Policy D1 of the London Plan, The Spatial Strategy for [name], March 2021. Together these seek, amongst other matters, to ensure the amenity and quality of life for future residents is not adversely impacted and development integrates with the neighbourhood and grain of the area.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 3
31 March 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described on the application form as, “Proposed single storey rear extension to extend Kitchen and Dining Area”.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of 11 and [address] (Nos 11 and 15), with particular regard to daylight, sunlight, and privacy.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore find that the proposed development would have an unacceptable and harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 11, with particular regard to privacy, and an unacceptable and harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 15, with particular regard to daylight, sunlight, and privacy. It would conflict with parts i. and ii. of Policy 7 of the Havering Local Plan (2016 –
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2