London Borough of Lewisham appeal evidence
Refused over a neighbour’s living conditions in Lewisham?
See the selected examples’ privacy and outlook findings, plus the gap in the allowed extract.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 30 of 130
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 12
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 18
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 26
- of 30 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: Lewisham LPA (51.448277, −0.020268). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
London Borough of Lewisham appeal findings
Lewisham privacy and outlook conclusions
The selected examples are more dismissal-heavy than the matched local set. The allowed extract addresses conservation-area effects but gives no conclusion on neighbour living conditions.
Counted against appeals
Privacy and outlook harm
Privacy harm to neighbours
The inspector concluded that the proposal would harm the privacy of occupiers at Nos 25 and 29.
Outlook harm to neighbours
Inspectors concluded that the proposals would harm the outlook of identified neighbouring occupiers.
Helped or needed
Allowed case lacks outlook reasons
No shown outlook reasoning
Appeal 63584 names outlook at No. 5 as an issue, but its displayed extract concludes only on the conservation area. It does not show what helped on living conditions.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal name the neighbour whose privacy would be affected?
- Does it explain how the proposal would harm their outlook?
- Does your evidence distinguish outlook harm from daylight or sunlight loss?
The allowed extract is only partly about this issue: it concludes on the conservation area, not neighbour living conditions. 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
28 January 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
the demolition of existing extension and replacement with new part single part double storey extension. The construction of a replacement front boundary and the installation of replacement windows.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • the Brockley Conservation Area (the CA); and, • the living conditions of the adjoining occupiers, with particular regard to the outlook for those at No. [address].
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore conclude that the proposed development would preserve the character and appearance of the CA, consistent with the duty in the Act, and for the same reasons comply with the relevant part of Policy HC1 of The London Plan, The Spatial Development Strategy for [name], dated March 2021, and Policies 30,31 and 36 of Lewisham’s Development Management Local Plan, adopted November 2014 (DMLP), and Policies 15 and 16 of Lewisham’s Core Strategy Development Plan Document, adopted June 2011 (CS) that amongst other things, require new development to be high quality, complement the form and architectural characteristics of a property, conserve and enhance the significance of heritage assets and prevent development that would be harmful to conservation areas. Living conditions – No.5
Paragraph 13 · Source pages 3, 4
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
19 May 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘new metal stair to garden from 1st floor flat with opaque privacy screen balustrade’.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers at 25 and [address] (Nos 25 and 29), with particular regard to privacy.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude that the proposed development would result in a harmful effect on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers of Nos 25 and 29, with particular regard to privacy. In this regard it would conflict with Policy QD9 of the Lewisham Local Plan (2025) which requires development proposals to not adversely impact on or result in the loss of, the amenity of neighbouring properties, including back gardens.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
25 March 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a raised decking to the rear of the property and addition of privacy screening and balustrade.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupants of the neighbouring property at 5 [site address] having particular regard to the loss of daylight, sunlight and outlook.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The Council further expressed concern regarding a loss of sunlight and daylight due to the extension and fencing. [name] accept this may be the case for limited times of the day, both properties are broadly south facing, and this means that there would be reasonable light and solar access for most of the day. This is such that I am unable to conclude that any loss of daylight or sunlight would cause any demonstrable harm to the living conditions of the occupants of number 5. This is because there would be ample access to daylight and sunlight for the majority of the day.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
30 January 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
rear extension and new window to existing dwellinghouse.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of 1 [name], with particular regard to outlook.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the reasons above, I conclude the development results in harm to the outlook of 1 [name]. The development is therefore in conflict with Policy QD9 of the Lewisham Local Plan ([name] 2025), the guidance contained within the Alterations and Extensions Supplementary Planning Document ([name] 2019), and the National Planning Policy Framework which, amongst other things, seek to ensure development provides acceptable living conditions for neighbouring properties in regard to outlook.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
9 January 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the erection of a ground floor single storey side extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in this appeal are the effect of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the area; and • the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], with particular regard to outlook.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Therefore, I conclude that the proposed development would harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No 11, with particular regard to outlook. This would be contrary to Policy QD7 of the LP where it requires proposals to ensure no unacceptable adverse impact on amenity, including ensuring adequate provision for outlook.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 2