Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over neighbour living conditions in Hinckley and Bosworth?
Learn which neighbour effects inspectors found harmful, and the conclusion reached on outlook, privacy and light.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 9 of 34
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 1
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 8
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 7
- of 9 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: Hinckley and Bosworth LPA (52.616513, −1.391022). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council appeal findings
Neighbour privacy, outlook and light
The selected examples have a higher share of allowed appeals than the matched local set. The allowed extract gives only a conclusion, not the design details behind it.
Counted against appeals
Privacy and neighbour harm
Privacy harm to neighbours
A rear, front and loft extension was found significantly harmful to neighbouring privacy.
Limited neighbour harm
The conclusion says the dormer scheme would have a limited but still harmful effect on neighbouring occupiers.
Helped or needed
No unacceptable neighbour harm
Outlook, privacy and light
The Inspector concluded the extension would not unacceptably harm neighbours’ outlook, privacy or light.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify privacy, outlook or light, and the affected neighbour?
- Which part of your proposal is said to cause that harm?
- Does the refusal explain why the harm would be significant or limited?
Some selected examples found acceptable neighbour conditions, so they are limited comparisons for this issue. 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
2 May 2023 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
first floor and single storey side, front and rear extensions and other alterations.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, with particular regard to outlook, privacy and light.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude that the proposal would not unacceptably harm the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, with particular regard to outlook, privacy and light. It would therefore accord with Policy DM10 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD Adopted July 2016. This policy, among other provisions, seeks to ensure developments do not have a significant adverse effect on the privacy and amenity of nearby residents.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
17 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘Retrospective application for change of use of land to residential.’
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area; • whether the proposal is suitably located having regard to relevant development plan policies concerning sustainable transport; • whether the proposed development provides acceptable living conditions for occupiers, with regard to the provision of private internal space; and • whether there are other material considerations sufficient to outweigh any harm identified in respect of the first three issues.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Overall, I conclude that the development would provide acceptable living conditions for occupiers, with regard to the provision of private internal space. As such it complies with Policy DM10 of the SADMP which requires, amongst other matters, for development to preserve the amenity of occupiers of a development.
Paragraph 24 · Source page 5
28 May 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a new side dormer to an existing room above the garage and alterations to the rear including raising the eaves and building up the existing rear walls.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposed extensions to the front of the property on: • the character and appearance of the host property and the area; and • the living conditions at [address] (‘No 11’), with particular regard to overlooking.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I have found that the scheme would significantly harm the character and appearance of the host property and the area, and that it would cause a more limited, but nonetheless still harmful, impact on neighbouring occupiers’ living conditions. It would therefore conflict with the development plan. For these reasons, and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 3
6 March 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a loft extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area; and • The effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of 16 Brookdale with regards to privacy
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude that the proposals would have no adverse impact on the living conditions of No 16. This accords with point (a) of policy DM10 of the [name] of which seeks to protect the privacy of occupiers of nearby properties. However, my findings on this issue do not overcome the harms that I have identified to the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 3
21 January 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
erection of double storey rear, single storey front and loft extensions.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: i) the character and appearance of the area; and, ii) the living conditions of occupiers of the neighbouring properties, in terms of privacy.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the above reasons, the proposal would have a significantly harmful effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, in terms of privacy. It would conflict with Policy DM10 of the DPD, which amongst other matters, requires that developments do not have a significant adverse effect on the privacy and amenity of nearby residents and occupiers of adjacent buildings.
Paragraph 11 · Source pages 2, 3