Kirklees Council appeal evidence
Refused over neighbour living conditions in Kirklees?
See the neighbour effects inspectors found harmful and the minor privacy effect that helped an allowed appeal.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 56 of 160
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 9
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 47
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 56
- of 56 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: Kirklees LPA (53.635607, −1.748179). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Kirklees Council appeal findings
Kirklees neighbour effects: light, outlook, privacy and noise
The selected examples have a slightly different outcome balance from the matched local set, and the allowed example concerns a glazing condition (55307).
Counted against appeals
Light, outlook and noise concerns
Outlook and light from extensions
The selected extension examples concluded harm to outlook and daylight. One also included sunlight.
Nearby designs did not match
Similar orientation and design elsewhere did not have the same effect on No 45 because of existing development.
Recesses could reflect heat-pump noise
A nearby wall and recessed window could reflect heat-pump noise towards No 43, creating potential harm.
Helped or needed
When clear glazing stayed acceptable
Privacy loss stayed minor
Clear glazing caused only a very minor privacy loss, so neighbours retained a high standard of amenity.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify a neighbour’s outlook, daylight, sunlight, privacy or noise?
- Does existing development make your comparison site different from the neighbour’s home?
- Could nearby walls or recessed windows reflect noise towards a neighbour?
The selected examples range from a glazing condition to extensions and a heat pump. 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
8 August 2024 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a rear orangery and associated alterations without complying with a condition attached to planning permission reference 2023/62/92423/E, dated 25 October 2023.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect on the living conditions of the residents of [address] with regard to privacy.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The condition requiring the obscure glazing of the side windows would only be reasonable and necessary if the outlook from the orangery would unacceptably harm the living conditions of the neighbouring residents. As the clear glazing of the window results in only a very minor loss of privacy, that would not unacceptably harm the living conditions of the residents of [address], the condition does not meet the tests set out in the National Planning Policy Framework 2023. As the neighbouring residents would continue to have a high standard of amenity with the clear glazing retained, there would be no conflict with the amenity requirements of policy LP24(b&c) of the Kirklees Local Plan
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
12 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a first floor extension over side extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: i) the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area; and ii) the living conditions of occupiers of [address] (No 225), in terms of outlook, daylight and sunlight.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Consequently, the proposed development would be harmful to the living conditions of occupiers of No 225, in terms of outlook and daylight. It would conflict with Policy LP24 of the KLP in consideration of the effect on living conditions. This requires that developments provide a high standard of amenity for neighbouring occupiers. For the same reasons, the proposal would conflict with the guidance in the SPD which seeks to protect the amenity of residents in neighbouring properties.
Paragraph 14 · Source page 3
18 December 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a double storey rear extension & single storey front extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The Council has not raised any concerns regarding the proposed single storey front extension and based on the information before me I have no reason to take a different view. The main issue in dispute is the effect of the proposed double storey rear extension on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], with regard to outlook, sunlight and daylight.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude that the proposed rear extension would cause material harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of No 60, with regard to outlook, sunlight and daylight. The proposal would therefore conflict with Policy LP24 of the Kirklees Local Plan (2019) insofar as it seeks to ensure that extensions minimise impact on residential amenity of future and neighbouring occupiers.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
23 October 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a 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 Number [address] (No. 45) with specific regard to outlook and light.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
There are examples of development that demonstrate a similar orientation and design to this proposal, in particular Number [address]. However, due to existing development these examples do not have the same effect on the living conditions as I have identified to No. 45. The appeal proposals would therefore conflict with Policy LP24 of the Kirklees Local Plan Strategy and Policies (2019), and guidance contained in the [name] and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (2021) which, amongst other things, both seek to ensure development minimises the impact on residential amenity of neighbouring occupiers.
Paragraph 6 · Source pages 1, 2
26 June 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the installation of an air source heat pump.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in the appeal is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring property, No [address] (No 43) by way of noise.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposed ASHP would be installed behind a porch sited on the side elevation of No 42. Whilst it would face the garage associated with the appeal property away from the side elevation of No 43, the adjacent wall and window within the recessed area in which it would be sited could reflect noise towards No 43. It therefore has the potential to unacceptably harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No 43.
Paragraph 7 · Source pages 1, 2