North Kesteven District Council appeal evidence
Refused over neighbour living conditions in North Kesteven?
Learn what the selected local examples say about privacy, noise, light and outlook.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 6 of 13
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 1
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 5
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 5
- of 6 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 Kesteven LPA (53.081202, −0.446154). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
North Kesteven District Council appeal findings
North Kesteven privacy, noise, light and outlook
The selected examples have a different outcome mix from the matched local set. Some dismissed extracts find no neighbour harm and do not explain the dismissal.
Counted against appeals
Privacy and noise harm
Roof terrace privacy harm
The terrace's siting, size and design were found significantly harmful to a neighbour's privacy.
Gazebo noise harm
The gazebo was concluded to cause unacceptable noise harm to nearby residents.
Helped or needed
Light and outlook not harmed
No significant light or outlook harm
The Inspector concluded the front extension would not significantly harm a neighbour's light or outlook.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does your refusal identify privacy harm from siting, size or design?
- Does it identify noise harm to nearby residents?
- Does it address loss of light or outlook at a neighbouring home?
A dismissed appeal in the matched local set is not selected, so its reasoning is unavailable here. 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
2 March 2022 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
the erection of a single storey front extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed extension on the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring No [address] of light and outlook.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
In conclusion, I find that the proposed extension would not be significantly harmful to the living conditions of the occupiers of No [address] of light or outlook. It would not unduly harm the residential amenities of neighbouring properties and it would not, therefore, conflict with Policy LP26 of the LP.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
18 September 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘To allow for a roof terrace on an existing building for external access to windows, guttering and most importantly two different pitched roofs for repairs and to act as a fire exit in case of emergency’.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupier/s at [address] in terms of privacy.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Therefore, I find that the proposed development, by reason of its siting, size and design, would result in significant harm to the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers of no [address] with regard to privacy. As such, it would be contrary policy S53 referred to earlier.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
17 January 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
balcony to first floor living space.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on i) the character and appearance of the area; and ii) the living conditions of occupiers of No.[address], with regard to privacy.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore conclude that the proposal would not adversely affect the living conditions of occupiers of No.[address], with regard to increased loss of privacy. As such I find no conflict with Policy S53 of the Local Plan in so far as it relates to the need to avoid harm to the amenity of people occupying neighbouring development, in terms of overlooking.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
26 February 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
1, erection of timber framed gazebo. 2, erection of timber storage shed.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposal on the: • Character and appearance of the host property and the area, with due regard to heritage assets; and • Living conditions of nearby residents in respect of noise, odour and light.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Notwithstanding my conclusions in respect of light and odour, I conclude that the proposed gazebo would lead to unacceptable harm to the living conditions of nearby residents due to noise. The proposal would therefore be contrary to the amenity considerations of Policy S53 of the Local Plan as well as the Framework which seeks to ensure a high standard of amenity for existing and future users of places.
Paragraph 26 · Source page 5
20 May 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the construction of a two-storey rear and side extension, conversion of roof space into living accommodation, construction of a new basement beneath the proposed rear extension, construction of a lean-to roof and porches to the front elevation, and construction of a new garden wall to the front aspect of the site which fronts the A607.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: a) the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] Villas, with particular reference to a loss of light; and b) the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Consequently, in reference to the first main issue, the proposal would not harm the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] Villas, with particular reference to a loss of light. It would therefore comply with Policy S53(8d) of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan, adopted 2023 (LP) which, amongst other things, seeks to ensure that a proposal does not result in harm to people’s amenity. It would also comply with paragraph 135(f) of the Framework that seeks to create places with a high standard of amenity for existing users.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2