New Forest District Council appeal evidence
Refused over neighbour living conditions in New Forest?
See the selected examples’ privacy, screening and odour concerns, plus the allowed neighbour-effects conclusion.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 12 of 43
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 3
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 9
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 8
- of 12 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: New Forest LPA (50.877948, −1.69714). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
New Forest District Council appeal findings
New Forest privacy screening and odour evidence
The selected examples have a different outcome mix from the matched local set. The allowed extract gives only a conclusion, and an edge-of-scope extract gives no neighbour-living-conditions reasoning.
Counted against appeals
Why privacy and odour failed
Screening was not secure long term
Existing vegetation screened a neighbour, but its retention as an effective barrier could not be guaranteed or reasonably controlled.
Privacy harm was found
The Inspector concluded that another proposal would materially harm a neighbour’s privacy.
Odour evidence did not clear harm
The submitted evidence did not satisfactorily show that odour emissions would avoid material harm to neighbour living conditions.
Helped or needed
Allowed conclusion on neighbour effects
No unacceptable harm concluded
The Inspector concluded that the proposal would not unacceptably harm privacy, outlook, daylight or sunlight for neighbouring occupiers.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal notice identify overlooking from a balcony, window or raised area?
- Is any proposed planting secured and likely to remain effective over time?
- Does the refusal notice say odour evidence fails to show no neighbour harm?
Appeal 83731 is edge-of-scope: its extract covers character and heritage harm, 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
16 October 2024 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
No verified development description was available for this example.
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 the surrounding area; and, https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate - Appeal Decision APP/B1740/D/24/3347079 • the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] and [address], with particular regard to privacy, outlook, daylight and sunlight.
Paragraph 4 · Source pages 1, 2
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore conclude that the proposed development would not unacceptably harm the living conditions of [address] and [address] in terms of privacy, outlook, and daylight and sunlight. Consequently, no conflict arises with the relevant provisions of Policy ENV3 of the LDPP1 insofar as it requires, amongst other things, new development to avoid unacceptable effects by reason of visual intrusion or overbearing impact, overlooking, shading, or other adverse impacts.
Paragraph 15 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
24 March 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
alterations to single-storey lean-to create balcony above.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal upon the living conditions of adjoining occupiers, particularly at [address] and [address], with specific regard to privacy.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I saw that the existing vegetation at 4A does currently provide some screening that avoids significant intrusion to the living conditions at No 7. However, the retention of this as an effective barrier long term could be neither guaranteed nor reasonably controlled. Neither am I persuaded that the roof to the adjacent garage at No 6, or the boundary enclosures to No 7, would mitigate any possible impact. I therefore find that the proposed balcony would have the potential to result in an unacceptable level of overlooking that would significantly impact the levels of privacy currently enjoyed at [address]. As such there would be conflict with Policy ENV3 of the Local Plan 2016 - 2036 Part 1: Planning Strategy for the New Forest District outside the New Forest National Park ([name] 1) insofar as it seeks to ensure new development, amongst other things, avoids the unacceptable effects of overlooking. By failing to achieve a high standard of amenity for existing and future users, there would also be conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework’s objectives for achieving well-designed places.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
26 February 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
2 agricultural buildings and associated hardstanding.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • Whether the appeal site is a suitable location for the proposal, having particular regard to flood risk; • The effect of the proposal on the landscape character and appearance of the area; and • The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of [name], with particular regard to odour emissions.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the above reasons, I therefore conclude that, the evidence submitted fails to satisfactorily demonstrate that the proposal would not materially harm the living conditions of the occupiers of [name], with particular regard to odour emissions. The proposal would therefore be contrary to LPP1 Policy ENV3, in so much as this policy, amongst other things, seeks to ensure that new development avoids unacceptable effects by reason of adverse impacts upon residential amenity.
Paragraph 55 · Source page 8
23 February 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘change of use of an existing Class B8 storage area to a Class C3 dwellinghouse’.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the Fordingbridge Conservation Area (the FCA); • The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of No.[address], with particular regard to privacy; and • Whether the proposal would provide adequate mitigation for the EPS.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the above reasons, I therefore conclude that the proposal would materially harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No.[address], having particular regard to privacy. As such, the appeal scheme would be contrary to Policy ENV3 of the New Forest District Local Plan 2016-2036 Part 1: Planning Strategy (July 2020) (the LPP1) in so much as this policy, amongst other things, seeks to ensure that all development contributes positively to quality of life, including avoiding unacceptable effects on residential amenity by reason of, inter alia, overlooking.
Paragraph 57 · Source page 9
3 February 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the use of existing ancillary accommodation as an independent dwelling, with associated car parking, highways works and ancillary infrastructure.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in this case are: - the effect of the scheme upon the character and appearance of the area, having particular regard to its location within the Cranborne Chase National Landscape, to its effect upon the settings of nearby listed buildings, and whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Rockbourne Conservation Area; - whether the scheme would be in a suitable location for residential development, having regard to national and local policy; - whether future occupiers would experience acceptable living conditions with regard to internal space; and - the effect of the scheme upon protected habitat sites.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
For these reasons the scheme would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the area. There would be harm to the special qualities of the NL and to the setting of nearby listed buildings, nor would the scheme preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area. The suggested conditions would not mitigate these harms, and there would be conflict with the Act and with Policies ENV3, ENV4, STR2, and STR3 of the New Forest District Local Plan Part 1: Planning Strategy (2020) (LP), and also with Policies DM1 and DM20 of the New Forest District Local Plan Part 2: Sites and Development Management (2014) (SDM). The scheme would fail to accord with these policies as they require, amongst other things, that development should respect and enhance local distinctiveness, protect and enhance the character, quality and scenic beauty of the NL and not have an unacceptable impact upon its special qualities, including dark skies, and that it should conserve and enhance the historic environment and heritage assets.
Paragraph 20 · Source page 4