Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over neighbour living conditions in Nuneaton and Bedworth?
See the selected examples’ conclusions on neighbour living conditions and the limits of their reasoning extracts.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 10 of 21
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 6
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 4
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 8
- of 10 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: Nuneaton and Bedworth LPA (52.501154, −1.475864). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council appeal findings
How Nuneaton and Bedworth extensions affected neighbours
The selected examples have a different outcome mix from the matched local set, and the allowed extracts provide conclusions rather than design detail.
Counted against appeals
Tall boundary outbuilding in Nuneaton and Bedworth
Too tall and too long
The constructed outbuilding extension was too tall and too long for its setting, causing adverse harm to a neighbour’s living conditions.
Helped or needed
Nuneaton and Bedworth extensions without undue neighbour harm
Rear extension caused no undue harm
The Inspector concluded the rear extension caused no undue harm to neighbouring occupiers’ living conditions. The extract gives no design details.
Conflict did not cause unacceptable harm
The Inspector concluded the side extension would not cause unacceptable harm despite cited conflict with policy and guidance. The extract gives no design details.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify a height or length causing enclosure?
- Does it explain any claimed effect on outlook or daylight?
- Does it say why harm would be unacceptable or undue?
Several extracts give conclusions only, so the displayed evidence cannot explain every appeal outcome. 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
28 August 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a two-storey side extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed two-storey side extension on the living conditions for the occupiers of No. 85 [site address] as regards outlook and privacy.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Overall, I find that although there would be some conflict with Policy BE3 of the Nuneaton & Bedworth Borough Council Borough Plan 2011-2031; the Council’s SPD, and paragraph 135f) of the National Planning Policy Framework, revised December 2024, I do not consider that this would be such as to cause unacceptable harm.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
10 May 2024 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
single storey extension to rear.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the development on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers of [address] (No 14).
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Overall, I conclude that the constructed extension does not cause undue harm to the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers at No 14. It is therefore consistent with the requirements of Policy BE3 of the Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Plan 2019 which, in summary, seeks to achieve a high-quality design which is appropriate to its context. Furthermore, the scheme broadly complies with the guidance set out in the National Planning Policy Framework and the National Design Guide.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
3 December 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as “Retrospective planning application - Retention of [name] at the rear of the property.”
Issue identified by the Inspector
The effect of the development on: • the character and appearance of the area; and • the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers of [address], with regard to outlook and loss of natural light.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the above reasons, the development does not cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers of [address], with regard to outlook and loss of natural light. As such, the development does not conflict with Policy BE3 of the BP, which amongst other things, seeks to ensure that new development takes account of residential amenity.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 2
10 July 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as the erection of outbuilding attached to existing outbuilding. Proposed height increase of outbuilding walls adjacent to and bordering the boundary with no.73 to cater for a Rosemary clay roof (part-retrospective).
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the development upon the living conditions of No.[address], with particular regard to sense of enclosure.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Despite this, it is clear to me that the extension as constructed is too tall and too long for this particular context, and would lead to adverse harm to the living conditions of the neighbouring occupier at No.[address]. Consequently, the scheme is contrary to BP Policy BE3, which is supported by the SPD.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 3
9 August 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
for the erection of a two storey front extension and two storey side extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposed development upon (i) the character and appearance of the area and (ii) the living conditions of the occupiers of No 68 Meadowside in terms of outlook.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the above reasons and on balance, I conclude that the proposed extension would not cause significant harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of No. 68 Meadowside in respect of outlook and would not conflict with the SPD.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 2