London Borough of Hillingdon appeal evidence
Refused over neighbour living conditions in Hillingdon?
See the neighbour effects inspectors found harmful and the site facts that avoided material harm.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 131 of 389
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 50
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 80
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 120
- of 132 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: Hillingdon LPA (51.541513, −0.445636). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
London Borough of Hillingdon appeal findings
Hillingdon neighbour effects: outlook, enclosure and parking
Selected examples 5285, 12891 and 91175 give conclusions without earlier analysis. Appeal 91174 also joins parking with highway safety, so it sits at the issue’s edge.
Counted against appeals
Oppressive outlook and overbearing effects
Oppressive outlook, enclosure and overshadowing
The rear extension was concluded to cause oppressive outlook, enclosure and overshadowing at a neighbouring property.
Loss of outlook at No 114
The proposal was concluded to harm No 114 through loss of outlook and an overbearing impact.
Helped or needed
Outlook, privacy and affected rooms
No harmful outlook or privacy effect
The pool outbuilding was concluded not to harm neighbours’ outlook or privacy.
Bedroom only marginally closer
The allowed extension was only marginally closer to a bedroom, which was not a separate dwelling and benefited from the scheme.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify an oppressive outlook, enclosure or overshadowing?
- Which rooms face the proposal, and would its closeness change their outlook?
- Is the affected room part of a separate dwelling?
These selected Hillingdon examples cannot show every reason in the matched local set. 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
29 October 2021 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
erection of an outbuilding in the rear garden of the property to house a swimming pool and associated plant room.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of occupiers of Nos 17 and [address], with regard to outlook and privacy.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Accordingly, I conclude that the proposed development would not have a harmful effect on the living conditions of occupiers of Nos 17 and [address], with regard to outlook and privacy. As such, it would not conflict with [name] 11 and DMHD 2 of the HLP-P2 in so far as they require development and outbuildings to be designed and constructed to the highest standards and not adversely impact on or compromise the amenity of adjacent properties and neighbouring occupiers.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 3
6 September 2022 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
described as the “demolition of existing conservatory and outbuilding and erection of single storey rear extension”.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of 9a and [address] with particular regards to outlook, daylight and privacy.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Nonetheless, on the basis that the proposed extension will only be marginally closer to this room, that is used as a bedroom and does not form a separate dwelling, and that the appeal scheme would be of specific benefit to the occupier of the bedroom, I am satisfied that the living conditions of the occupiers of the properties on the site will not be materially harmed by the appeal scheme.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
24 March 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
single storey rear extension and conversion of garage to habitable use.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development upon the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring property at no. [address] with particular regard to outlook and light.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For these reasons I conclude that the proposed development would cause harm to the living conditions of neighbouring properties by way of an oppressive outlook and an unneighbourly sense of enclosure and overshadowing to no. [address]. The development would therefore conflict with DMHD 1 and DMHB 11 of the Local Plan. These, amongst other things, seek to ensure developments protect do not cause unacceptable loss of amenity to adjacent occupiers. I consider that these policies are consistent with the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework and can therefore be given substantial weight.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
30 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as “Proposed ground floor single storey rear extension, part double storey side extension and part first floor rear extension and hip to gable end loft conversion with rear dormer and 3 no's skylight in front roof slope”.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and area, and the living conditions of the occupants of [address] with regard to outlook.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would result in harm to the living conditions of the occupants of No 114 with regard to loss of outlook and an overbearing impact. Therefore, I find conflict with Policies DMHB11 and DMHD1 of the [name] and D3 and D6 of the LP. [name], among other things, aim to ensure that development does not result in an unacceptable loss of outlook or adverse impact to the amenity of neighbouring occupiers.
Paragraph 20 · Source page 4
30 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as “proposed change of use from C4 6 bed HMO to [name] 7 bed HMO”.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • the living conditions of adjacent occupiers with regard to noise and disturbance; and • conditions of highway safety with regard to parking provision.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposed development would result in unacceptable impacts on highway safety and the living conditions of nearby occupants by way of parking. I therefore find conflict with [name] 1, DMT 2 and DMT 6 of the London Borough of Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 - Development Management Policies; and Policies T4 and T6 of the London Plan 2021 (LP). These policies, amongst other things, aim to ensure development addresses its transport impacts, is acceptable in terms of highway safety, and provides adequate vehicular parking. I further find inconsistency with the Framework where it seeks to promote sustainable transport and highway safety.
Paragraph 20 · Source page 4