Oadby and Wigston Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over neighbour living conditions in Oadby and Wigston?
The selected examples show neighbour effects inspectors found harmful or acceptable.
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 36
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 3
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 9
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 10
- 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: Oadby and Wigston LPA (52.587157, −1.093393). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Oadby and Wigston Borough Council appeal findings
Oadby and Wigston outlook and care-home disturbance findings
The selected examples have a different outcome mix from the matched local set, and most extracts give conclusions rather than detailed reasoning.
Counted against appeals
Outlook harm and care-home disturbance
Unacceptable loss of outlook
The Inspector concluded that the rear outbuilding would cause unacceptable harm to neighbours' outlook.
Care-home disturbance concerns
The extract identifies possible noise, disturbance and anti-social behaviour for nearby residents, but does not explain the conclusion reached.
Helped or needed
Care-home and rear-extension findings
No undue disturbance found
For the children's care home, the Inspector concluded neighbours would face no undue harm from fear of crime, anti-social behaviour, noise or disturbance.
No unacceptable extension harm
For the rear extension, the Inspector concluded it would not unacceptably harm the living conditions of number 23.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify harm to outlook, noise, disturbance or anti-social behaviour?
- Which neighbouring occupiers would experience the stated harm?
- Does your evidence address the exact concern in the refusal?
A dismissed example concerns future occupants rather than neighbours, and the extracts do not give full decision reasoning. 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
26 June 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
for change of use from C3 dwelling to C2 Children's care home.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • whether the proposal would meet an identified need for children’s residential care facilities in the Borough. • the effect of the proposed development on the supply of family housing; and • the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to the fear of crime, anti-social behaviour, and noise and disturbance.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Overall, I conclude that the proposed development would not unduly harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with regard to the fear of crime, anti-social behaviour, and noise and disturbance. As such, I find no conflict with Policy 6 of the Local Plan which, amongst other matters, relates to design and materials, rather than the fear of crime or noise and disturbance.
Paragraph 17 · Source page 3
5 June 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a two storey and single storey rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupants of number [address] Extension (number 23), with particular regard to outlook.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
In summary, I consider that the proposal would not have an unacceptably harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupants of number 23. Consequently, it would not conflict with the provisions of the Development Plan or with the Council’s guidance, as referred to above.
Paragraph 14 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
18 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
to change the use of the property at [site address] , Oadby (a three-bedroom semi-detached house) from a Class C3 dwellinghouse to a Class C2 residential institution for the care of one child.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • the effect of the proposal in meeting local housing need; and • the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of nearby residents, with particular regard to community safety and cohesion and noise and disturbance.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
and an associated judgment (Smith v [name] of State and Mid-Bedfordshire District Council [2006] JPL 386) where the potential effects of the proposals on the living conditions of neighbouring properties were considered, with particular regard to noise, disturbance, and anti-social behaviour. While noting that this appeal proposal is in a different location and for a smaller care home, I have reached similar conclusions regarding the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of nearby residents.
Paragraph 2,004,825 · Source page 3
29 May 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
for the erection of a single storey outbuilding to the rear for use in part as a garden room and for vehicle storage (up to 4 cars)-Retrospective
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: (i) the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the local area; and (ii) the effect of the development on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, with particular regard to outlook.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore conclude that the proposal would cause unacceptable harm to neighbouring living conditions in respect of outlook, contrary to paragraph 135(f) of The Framework, and Policy 6 ([name] and Materials) of the OADWLP which seeks to protect local amenity. Policy 44 (Landscape and Character) of OADWLP and SPD guidance relate to character rather than amenity and are not directly relevant to this issue; I therefore afford them limited weight in this context.
Paragraph 23 · Source page 4
4 June 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a single-storey side and rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of both the existing dwelling and the streetscene; and whether the proposal would provide satisfactory living conditions for the future occupants of the appeal dwelling.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Accordingly, I conclude on this issue that the proposal would fail to provide satisfactory living conditions for the future occupants of the appeal dwelling
Paragraph 13 · Source page 2