Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over neighbours’ living conditions in Redcar and Cleveland?
See how the selected examples treated neighbour outlook, noise and disturbance, and what the available reasoning does not show.
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 24
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 5
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 5
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 9
- 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: Redcar and Cleveland LPA (54.565464, −1.044465). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council appeal findings
Outlook and HMO disturbance in Redcar and Cleveland
The selected examples have a different outcome mix from the matched local set, and some extracts give conclusions only.
Counted against appeals
Harm at No 16, No 43 and No 45
Outlook harm at No 43 and No 45
The Inspector concluded that the proposal would harm their living conditions, particularly their outlook.
Significant harm at No 16
The Inspector concluded that the proposal would significantly harm the living conditions of No 16’s occupiers.
Helped or needed
Conservatory, garage and HMO findings
Replacing an existing conservatory
The extension replaced a conservatory and was acceptable in size and scale, so the Inspector found no unacceptable impact on No 55’s outlook.
Noise and disturbance safeguarded
The Inspector concluded that the HMO proposal would safeguard neighbouring living conditions against noise and disturbance.
Garage conversion: no harm found
The extract concludes that the garage conversion and link extension would not harm a neighbouring occupier’s living conditions.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Which neighbour does the refusal say would lose outlook or living conditions?
- Does the refusal identify noise or disturbance from the proposed use?
- Does your extension replace a conservatory, with a similar size and scale?
Appeals 90311 and 88039 also cover other main issues; only their neighbour-living-condition conclusions are used 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
3 examples
12 June 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
change of use of the first floor ancillary office space above existing ground floor to a House in [name] (HMO) comprising of 8 bedrooms, with associated internal alterations and an installation of a front door by replacing existing shutter.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: - the implications of the proposal for the achievement of balanced communities, with particular reference to the character and appearance of the area, and - the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to noise and disturbance.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
The proposal would therefore safeguard the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to noise and disturbance. The proposed development would therefore comply with LP policies H6 (c) and SD4 (b) which seek to ensure that the development will not give rise to conditions prejudicial to residential amenity.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 3
29 April 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
conversion of existing detached garage to habitable accommodation and construction of a single-storey link extension between dwelling and garage.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in this appeal are the effect of the development on (i) the character and appearance of the host property and area in general; and (ii) the living conditions of the occupiers of No. [address].
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude that the proposed development would not harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No. [address].
Paragraph 13 · Source page 3
11 March 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
single storey rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue of the appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of number [address] (No. 55) with particular regard to outlook.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Given that the extension is replacing an existing conservatory and is acceptable in size and scale, I conclude that the proposed development would not have an unacceptable impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of No. 55 in relation to outlook. The proposed development would therefore comply with Policy SD4 (b) of the [site address] Local Plan, 2018 which explains amongst other matters that development will be permitted where it will not have a significant adverse impact on the amenities of occupiers of existing or proposed nearby land and buildings. For the same reasons, the proposed development would also accord with the guidance contained within the SPD.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
2 examples
6 February 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
single storey extension to rear of existing detached house.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address].
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For these reasons, I conclude that the proposal would be significantly harmful to the living conditions of the occupiers of No 16. The proposal therefore conflicts with Policy SD4 of the Redcar and Cleveland Local Plan, adopted May 2018. This requires development in general to meet design principles to ensure that it will not have a significant adverse impact on the amenities of occupiers of existing and buildings. For similar reasons it would also conflict with the aims of the [name] and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document , May 2013, where it seeks to ensure development does not result in unacceptable effects for the occupiers of adjacent properties.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
10 May 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
Demolition of existing single storey rear conservatory and proposed single storey rear extension and first floor side extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect on the living conditions of No.43 and No.[address] (No.43 and No.45), with particular regard to outlook.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
From my observations, and for the reasons set out above, I conclude that the proposal would harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No.43 and No.45 with particular regard to outlook. Consequently, there would be conflict with Policy SD4 of the Local Plan.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 2