Herefordshire Council appeal evidence
Refused over neighbour living conditions in Herefordshire?
See what selected examples show about drainage, privacy and noise before checking your refusal.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 6 of 31
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 0
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 6
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 2
- of 6 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: Herefordshire, County of LPA (52.103693, −2.745121). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Herefordshire Council appeal findings
Drainage, privacy and noise near Herefordshire homes
The matched local set has no allowed appeal, so the selected examples cannot provide a successful local comparator.
Counted against appeals
Why drainage and privacy harmed neighbours
Unproven drainage raised odour fears
Uncertain ground conditions could leave partly treated drainage in the reed bed, increasing nearby odour and flooding risks.
Screens did not prevent outlook harm
Higher boundary fences and one-way or obscure glazing would not stop the annexe causing significant outlook and privacy harm.
Moderate harm was the conclusion
The Inspector concluded that the conversion would cause moderate harm to nearby occupants’ living conditions.
No allowed example matched
No allowed Herefordshire neighbour-living comparator
This snapshot has no allowed local example for this issue.
Noise evidence addressed unit siting
Although the appeal was dismissed, the Inspector accepted a noise assessment, hearing explanation and north-end unit siting as controllable by condition.
Window position limited overlooking
Although the appeal was dismissed, obscured ensuite glazing and an angled rear window avoided direct views; side views were not significantly greater.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does drainage testing show an outfall will not cause flooding or odour?
- Would your windows, balcony or annexe add overlooking or harm outlook?
- Does your noise evidence specify equipment siting and condition controls?
The selected Herefordshire excerpts may not cover every neighbour-living issue in the matched local set. These decisions do not predict another result.
Appeal evidence examples
Read the reasoning in matched appeal decisions
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.
Dismissed appeal examples
5 examples
26 May 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
residential development of 6no. dwellings.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: - the effect of the proposed development on the landscape character of the area; - whether the proposed development would provide adequate surface water and foul water management and the effect of the foul drainage system on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties at Etna and on [address], predominately from flood risk and odour; - the effect of the development on biodiversity, especially [name] and bats; - the effect of the development on the living conditions of the future occupants of the proposal and the occupants of neighbouring properties from contamination; and - the effect of the development on the River Wye Special Area of Conservation.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
The limited compelling evidence that the ground is appropriate for deep discharge of the foul drainage increases the risk that the water discharging from the system would not percolate into the ground. It would be at risk of remaining in, and overwhelming, the reed bed system, especially when added to the existing ground water and rainwater falling on that area. This would increase the risk of flooding to the surrounding area and would also increase the risk of foul drainage, albeit partly treated, sitting in the reed bed system and increasing odours, both of which would be harmful to the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties. Given the uncertainty over the suitability of the ground conditions for discharging the outfall, and as it is not clear that an appropriate system would be capable of being provided, a Grampian condition would not be reasonable.
Paragraph 19 · Source page 4
30 April 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as “Outline application for Change of Use of existing redundant and dilapidated [address] and outbuildings into new residential development of 4 x 3 bed units of residential accommodation together with car parking turning and manoeuvring”.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in this appeal are: • whether the loss of the public house is justified having regard to the development plan policies; • the effect of the proposal on highway safety; and • the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring occupants, with specific regard to outlook and privacy.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
I have found that the proposal would conflict with Policy SC1 of the [name] and Policy CF1 of the NDP, which seek to protect community facilities. It would result in moderate harm to the living conditions of the occupants of [address] and the accommodation above the adjacent hairdressers, contrary to Policy SD1 of the [name] and Policy CD2 of the NDP. In addition, it has not been demonstrated that the proposal would avoid unacceptable harm to highway safety, and it would therefore be contrary to Policy MT1 of the [name]. As such, the proposal would conflict with the development plan, read as a whole.
Paragraph 36 · Source pages 5, 6
10 March 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the construction of an apple cold store with roof mounted solar panels, associated permeable hardstanding, rainwater harvesting, loading and delivery areas, improved access track, soft landscaping.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: (i) the character and appearance of the area; (ii) highway safety; and (iii) the living conditions of nearby residents, with particular regard to noise.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
There are several properties to the south of the appeal site which would be in reasonably close proximity to the proposed apple store. The appellant provided an Environmental Noise Assessment as part of their application material (Noise.co.uk Ltd, August 2025). The assessment concludes that the noise emanating from the refrigeration units inside the apple store would not result in unacceptable harm to the living conditions of nearby occupiers. Based on the content of the assessment, and the helpful explanation provided to me during the hearing, I am satisfied that this would be the case and that these particular matters could be controlled by condition, including requiring that the refrigeration units be located at the north end of the site. I note that the Council does not seek to disagree with that position.
Paragraph 15 · Source page 3
11 November 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the siting of an annexe as ancillary accommodation in the rear garden.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • the effect of the annexe on the character and appearance of the area; • the effect of the annexe on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers in relation to outlook and privacy; and • the effect of the annexe on the integrity of the River Wye Special Area of Conservation (SAC).
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Whatever measures are taken to increase the height of boundary fences or install one-way or obscure glazing the annexe building causes significant harm to the living conditions of adjacent properties in relation to outlook and privacy. This conflicts with HLP Policy SD1 which requires proposals to safeguard residential amenity for existing and proposed residents.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
27 August 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
Proposed extensions (at first floor level) and balcony to the rear.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposed development upon: • the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area; and, • the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring houses.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposal would add a rear window closer to the boundary with No 4, and a side window facing 2 first floor side windows at No 4. The side window would serve an ensuite bathroom. A planning condition requiring obscured glazing could prevent any mutual overlooking between it and the side windows at No 4. Due to the orientation of the appeal property, the proposed rear window would be slightly angled away from No 4, preventing any views into No 4s windows or direct views into its rear garden, as is the case with the existing windows at the appeal property. There would be sideways views across part of the garden closest to the boundary fence, but the potential for overlooking would not be significantly greater than already exists. The proposed development therefore complies with Policies LD1 and SD1 of the CS and the Framework insofar as they seek to protect residential amenity.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2