Leicester City Council appeal evidence
Refused over neighbour living conditions in Leicester?
See the selected examples on living space, amenity, noise and privacy.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 53 of 103
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 15
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 37
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 48
- of 53 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: Leicester LPA (52.637939, −1.128477). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Leicester City Council appeal findings
Leicester homes: space, amenity, noise and privacy
The allowed extract gives only its conclusion, while some dismissed extracts do not show the reasoning leading to theirs.
Counted against appeals
Space, private amenity and disturbance
Future homes lacked adequate space
The Inspector concluded that internal floorspace and outdoor amenity space would not secure adequate living conditions for future occupiers.
Private amenity harm was found
The conclusion was that occupants’ living conditions would be harmed, but the extract does not give the earlier analysis.
Noise and disturbance harmed occupiers
The Inspector concluded that the proposal would unacceptably harm existing occupiers, with particular regard to noise and disturbance.
Helped or needed
Where neighbour harm was not significant
No significant neighbour harm
For the dormer proposal, the Inspector found no significant harm to No.79’s living conditions. The extract refers to privacy and overshadowing.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal show adequate internal floor and outdoor amenity space?
- Does it identify noise or disturbance for existing occupiers?
- Does it explain privacy or overshadowing effects on neighbours?
A selected dismissed extract addresses appearance, not neighbour living conditions. Other extracts give conclusions without their earlier analysis. 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
15 February 2022 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
construction of a dormer and installation of rooflights as front, first floor extension and dormer at side of house; alterations.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of No [address].
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore find that the proposed development would not cause significant harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of No.79. The proposed development would accord with policy PS10 of the City of Leicester Local Plan, which requires new development to protect residential amenity from, amongst other things, privacy and overshadowing. It would also accord with the relevant parts of the National Planning Policy Framework.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
9 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the change of use from 4 no. one-bed student dwellinghouses (sui generis) to 4 no. one-bed dwellinghouses (use class C3).
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether the proposed development would result in adequate living conditions for future occupiers, with particular regard to internal floorspace and outdoor amenity space.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
In conclusion on the main issues, the proposal would result in significant adverse impacts such that it would fail to secure adequate living conditions for future occupiers with regard to internal floorspace and outdoor amenity space. It would therefore conflict with Policy PS10 of the Saved City of Leicester Local Plan 1996- 2016 (January 2006) (LP) which promotes good design and a quality living environment for residents. I have also had due regard to Paragraph 135(f) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which states that new development should create places which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for future users.
Paragraph 19 · Source page 4
28 April 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
construction of a single-storey outbuilding and a single-storey car port, with a first-floor greenhouse addition (Class C3).
Issue identified by the Inspector
In light of the above, the main issues are the effect of the proposed extensions on; • the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area; and • the living conditions of existing and future occupiers of the property, with particular regard to private amenity space.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For these reasons, I find that this would cause harm to the living conditions of the occupants of the dwelling. Accordingly, the appeal proposal conflicts with policy PS10 of the Saved City of Leicester Local Plan (2006).
Paragraph 14 · Source page 3
27 March 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
change of use of property from dwellinghouse (Class C3) to a 6- bedroom residential care home (Class C2), with associated single storey rear extensions and internal alterations.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposed development upon: • the character and appearance of the host building and the area; and, • the living conditions of neighbouring occupants, with specific regard to noise and disturbance.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
It is asserted that the proposed extensions would be screened from the public realm and therefore not visible. I do not accept this. Owing to their substantial size, depth and overall massing, the extensions would be clearly perceptible from numerous rearward viewpoints from properties along [address] and [address]. This represents a considerable number of dwellings. Although these are not public vantage points, they are nonetheless legitimate viewpoints from which the development would be experienced, and from which its excessive depth and discordant relationship with the host building would be readily apparent.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
24 March 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
change of use of ancillary outbuilding to rear of dwellinghouse (Class C3) to self-contained storage unit (Class B8); installation of 1.8 metre high fence.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue of the appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of existing occupiers of No. [address] (No. 256a) with particular regard to noise and disturbance.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposed development would unacceptably harm the living conditions of existing occupiers of No. 256a with particular regard to noise and disturbance. It would therefore be contrary to Policy CS03 of the [name], 2014 (CS) and saved Policy PS10 of the Local Plan, 2006 which together, amongst other matters, requires development to respond positively to the surroundings and provide residents with a quality living environment. For the same reasons, the proposed development would also be contrary to paragraph 135 f) of the National Planning Policy Framework relating to achieving well designed places.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 2