Lancaster City Council appeal evidence
Refused over neighbour living conditions in Lancaster?
Learn about privacy, outlook and light concerns, and a boundary screen that stopped overlooking.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 14 of 45
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 5
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 8
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 14
- of 14 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: Lancaster LPA (54.064313, −2.721814). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Lancaster City Council appeal findings
Lancaster patios, decking and extensions near neighbours
The selected examples have a different outcome mix from the matched local set. An allowed extract gives only a conclusion on outlook and light.
Counted against appeals
Lancaster patio, decking and extension objections
Decking revisions still harmed neighbours
Even with revised works, the raised decking was found to harm neighbours’ privacy and outlook.
Unacceptable outlook, daylight and sunlight
The Inspector concluded the extension would not provide acceptable living conditions, particularly for outlook, daylight and sunlight.
Outlook harm not disproved
The appellant did not demonstrate that the car port, garage and store would avoid harming No 15’s outlook.
Helped or needed
Lancaster screens, outlook and light
Tall tinted boundary screening
A tinted glass balustrade at the patio boundary was found to prevent direct overlooking from the closest area.
No unacceptable outlook or light harm
The Inspector concluded the extension would not cause unacceptable harm to Littlebirch’s outlook and light. The extract gives no reasons.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify privacy, outlook, daylight or sunlight harm?
- Could a raised patio or decking create direct views across the boundary?
- Does the refusal say what needs showing about your neighbour’s outlook and light?
The car port example also covers character and heritage, so this review uses only its outlook conclusion. 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
16 July 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
alterations to conservatory to create a single-storey rear extension, erection of a lower ground-floor single-storey extension with raised patio and glass balustrade above.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed raised patio on the living conditions of the occupiers of No [address] of privacy.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The existing patio is set around 2 metres above the level of the lower ground patio. The proposed garden room would be set around 0.5 metres lower than the existing ground level, such that the proposed extended raised patio would continue across its roof. I acknowledge that the extended patio would be in very close proximity to the boundary with No 24. However, the tinted glass balustrade, which would be some 1.2 metres high along most of its length, would be 1.8 metres high along the boundary and continue at that height for some 1.5 metres along the patio. This would effectively prevent any direct overlooking from that part of the raised patio closest to the boundary.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
3 June 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
the demolition of existing single storey rear extension and garage and creation of a new part two storey, part single rear and side extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of Littlebirch, with particular regard to outlook and light.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Consequently, for the reasons set out above, I therefore conclude that the proposed development would not cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of Littlebirch, with particular regard to outlook and light. Thus, it would be in accordance with Policy DM29 of the DMDPD which requires amongst other things, new development to ensure there is no significant detrimental impact to amenity in relation to overshadowing, visual amenity, privacy, overlooking, massing and pollution.
Paragraph 20 · Source page 4
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
10 August 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
raised decking area in garden.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect on the living conditions of the residents of [address] with regard to privacy and outlook.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The decking area has been carried out to the highest of standards and no doubt improves the living conditions of the residents given the benefits for outside living and the improved access to the lower garden that it offers. My understanding is that the decking height has not significantly increased over the original raised area close to the other neighbouring boundary but that area and the new steps, have not been identified as a concern. The current and proposed design result in unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the residents of [address] with regard to privacy and outlook. The proposed alterations do not go far enough to adequately address the concerns raised. Even with the revised works, the decking area would conflict with the requirements of policy DM29ii of the Lancaster District Local Plan 2011-2031 (2020) which seeks to prevent significant detrimental impacts to amenity in relation to privacy and overlooking. As the policy accords with the amenity requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework, I afford it full weight.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
27 January 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘part retrospective application for a rear side extension and re-roofing of garage and porch’.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions for occupants of the neighbouring dwelling, [address] (No.27), with particular regard to outlook, daylight and sunlight.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Accordingly, for the above reasons I find the proposed development would not provide acceptable living conditions for occupants of the neighbouring dwelling, No.27, with particular regard to outlook, daylight and sunlight. The proposal conflicts with Policy DM29 of A Local Plan for Lancaster District 2020-2021, [name]: Development Management Development Plan Document (climate emergency review), adopted 22 January 2025, in so far as this policy seeks, amongst other things, that development has no significant detrimental impact to amenity in relation to overshadowing and massing. The proposal would also fail to accord with the aims of paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework where it seeks a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
4 December 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
car port, garage and store.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are; i) the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the site and its surroundings having regard to its location within the ASNL, the [site address] and Redmayne Conservation Area (YCRCA) and the setting of a non-designated heritage asset (NDHA); and ii) the effect upon the living conditions of the occupants of No [address], with particular regard to outlook. 1 Section 11A(2) of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 and section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (as amended by section 245 of the [name] and Regeneration Act 2023) 2 As explained at paragraph 69 of the Local Plan for Lancaster District – [name]; Development Management Development Plan Document, 2025. 3 The Council’s officer report indicates that although amendments were requested, none were provided.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The appellant has failed to demonstrate that the proposal would not harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No 15, with particular regard to outlook. The proposed development therefore conflicts with Policy DM29 of the [name] 2 which seeks amongst other things, to ensure that there is no significant detrimental impact to amenity including visual amenity and massing.
Paragraph 27 · Source page 5