North East Derbyshire District Council appeal evidence
Refused over effects on neighbours in North East Derbyshire?
See how selected local inspectors assessed privacy, light, outlook and building bulk beside neighbours.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 7 of 33
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 4
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 3
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 7
- of 7 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: North East Derbyshire LPA (53.221514, −1.437207). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
North East Derbyshire District Council appeal findings
Light, privacy and building bulk next door
The selected examples have a slightly different outcome mix from the matched local set. One dismissed extract gives only a conclusion, not detailed reasoning.
Counted against appeals
Balcony harm to neighbours
The balcony harmed living conditions
The Inspector concluded that the balcony adversely affected neighbouring occupiers’ living conditions. The extract does not identify the particular effect.
Helped or needed
Separation, roof slope, light and outlook
Space from the shared boundary
Both homes were set back from the common boundary, and the pitched roof rose away from it, reducing the proposal’s building bulk.
Light and outlook stayed acceptable
For the rear extension, the Inspector found the effects on outlook, light and enclosure were not severe enough to significantly harm neighbouring living conditions.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify privacy, light, outlook, enclosure or building bulk?
- How much separation is there from the shared boundary?
- Does the roof slope away from the shared boundary?
The retained-extension dismissal is an edge case because it found no extra overlooking, and the balcony dismissal gives only its 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
3 examples
2 May 2023 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a first floor rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the development of the living conditions of neighbouring occupants at [address], with respect to outlook, light and enclosure.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Given these considerations, I find that the effect on outlook, light and sense of enclosure would not be so severe as to significantly harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupants. Therefore, notwithstanding the guidance of the SPD, I conclude that there would be no conflict with [name], SS7 and SDC12 of the North East Derbyshire Local Plan (November 2021) which together require development to achieve high quality design that avoids significant loss of amenity for residents of neighbouring properties.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 2
6 January 2022 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a [name] with Raising of the roofline and Creation of [name] in the Roof space.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], with particular reference to light and massing.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposal would extend a considerable distance back into the garden of the appeal property, providing living accommodation at ground and first floor levels. However, both the appeal dwelling and No 261 are set off the common boundary which would provide a degree of separation between the proposed development and its existing neighbouring property. The impact would be further lessened by the fact that the majority of the proposed new roof would be pitched to rise away from the common boundary. As a result, the massing of the proposed development would not cause harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of No 261.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 2
25 November 2021 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a two storey side extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; and • the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] with particular regard to privacy and maintenance.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the reasons above, I conclude that the proposal would not be harmful to the living conditions of the residents of No [address]. There would therefore be no conflict with policies GS5 and H5 of the North East Derbyshire Local Plan, policies LC5,SS7 and SDC12 of the North East Derbyshire Local Plan 2014-2034 ([name]) and policy D3 of the Dronfield Neighbourhood Plan or the Framework. These require, amongst other things, that development should not be detrimental to the amenities of neighbouring occupiers.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
2 examples
24 September 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
for the retention of two storey rear extension and single storey side extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and on the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring property, with particular regard to privacy. 1 LPA ref: 08/00060/FL
Paragraph 6 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Accordingly, I find that the development does not increase the existing levels of overlooking to such a degree that adversely affects the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring property. As such, the development is not contrary to Policy LC5 of the LP, with respect to the effect on living conditions, and which requires that developments avoid significant loss of privacy and amenity for the residents of neighbouring properties.
Paragraph 17 · Source page 3
26 August 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a balcony.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue relevant to this appeal is the effect of the development upon the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring properties, with particular reference to privacy.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The development has an adverse effect upon the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring properties. The development therefore conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole. There are no material considerations, including the National Planning Policy Framework, that indicate the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, for the preceding reasons, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.
Paragraph 19 · Source page 3