London Borough of Merton appeal evidence
Refused over neighbour living conditions in Merton?
See which neighbour impacts Merton inspectors found harmful and which proposal details avoided harm.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 54 of 101
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 20
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 34
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 50
- of 54 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: Merton LPA (51.409949, −0.197231). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
London Borough of Merton appeal findings
Merton neighbour light, outlook and enclosure
Some of the selected examples state only conclusions, with no reasons available to compare.
Counted against appeals
Merton extensions harming neighbours
Daylight and outlook
The selected extract concludes that a rear extension harmed neighbours’ outlook, sunlight and daylight.
Adverse visual impact
The two-storey element was found to harm No 115’s residents through adverse visual impact.
Light, outlook and privacy
The selected extract concludes that the proposal significantly harmed neighbours’ light, outlook and privacy.
Helped or needed
Siting that avoided neighbour harm
Siting and overall form
For a single-storey rear extension, the Inspector found its siting and overall form would not harm daylight or cause enclosure.
No identified neighbour harm
The selected extract states only that the outbuilding would not harm neighbouring living conditions.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify loss of daylight, sunlight, outlook, privacy or enclosure?
- Does it say a taller element harms a neighbour through visual impact?
- Does your evidence show how siting and form avoid those harms?
Some selected Merton examples give conclusions without the reasoning that led to them. 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
10 December 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
for the retention of an outbuilding at rear at 3 metres in height.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: • The character and appearance of the host dwelling; and • The living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For these reasons, I find that the proposal would not result in any harm to the character and appearance of the appeal dwelling or to the living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers. This would accord with Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021 [name] 14 of the London Borough of [name] (2011) and Policies DMD2 and DMD3 of the Sites and Polices Plan part of the Merton Local Plan (2014). Collectively these seek development of high quality that responds to the character of a place and to the siting, height and proportions of surrounding buildings, are not unduly dominant, protecting neighbours from visual intrusion and provide quality living conditions for neighbouring residential occupiers.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
14 October 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a single storey rear extension with a flat roof and roof lights.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of No. [address], with particular reference to sense of enclosure and loss of daylight.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Taking these factors into account, I conclude that the siting and overall form of the development would not harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No.[address], with particular reference to sense of enclosure and loss of daylight. The proposal would accord with Policies D12.3 and D12.4 of the Merton Local Plan (2024) (MLP) which amongst other things, seek to ensure that new development safeguards the residential amenity of existing occupiers.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
2 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the construction of a two-storey rear extension of 2.5m over the ground floor, at first and second floor level to provide enhanced bedroom and bathroom space.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on the: • character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area; and • living conditions of the occupiers of 45, 49 and [address] with particular reference to outlook, sunlight and daylight.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
In conclusion, the proposed development would be harmful to the living conditions of the occupiers of 45, 49 and [address] with particular reference to outlook, sunlight and daylight. The proposed development would not comply with the provisions set out in policies D12.3 and D12.4 of Merton Local Plan 2024 which seek to ensure proposed developments are designed to a high standard in order to provide good quality living conditions for neighbouring occupiers.
Paragraph 22 · Source page 4
18 November 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
two-storey side extension; single-storey rear extension; alterations to rear dormer; installation of rooflights at the front and rear roof; and erection of a single storey outbuilding in rear garden.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the development on: (a) the character and appearance of the host property and its surroundings, and (b) the living conditions of the residents of [address] with particular reference to light and visual impact.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude that the proposed two storey element of the scheme would harm the living conditions currently enjoyed by No 115’s residents by reason of its adverse visual impact upon them. Accordingly, a material conflict arises with those provisions of policies D12.3 & D12.4 of the Merton Local Plan (MLP) and policy D3 of the London Plan providing that development should be of a high quality design ensuring that a high standard of amenity is provided in a proposal’s surroundings. I 1 [name] v Secretary of State for [name], Housing and Communities & Anor [2023] [name] 904 am also conscious of the Framework’s2 advice providing that planning decisions should ensure that developments should assist in creating places with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.
Paragraph 10 · Source pages 2, 3
9 October 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the erection of a part single storey and part two storey rear extension. New side roof extension. Replacement windows.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; and on the living conditions of the occupants of [address], with particular regard to light, outlook, and privacy.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Consequently, overall, the proposed development would result in significant harm to the living conditions of the occupants of No 4 with regard to light, outlook, and privacy. It would therefore conflict with Policies D12.3 and D12.4 of the Local Plan, which require that acceptable light, privacy and outlook are available to existing occupants and that development does not significantly impact neighbouring amenity through overlooking.
Paragraph 22 · Source page 4