Reigate and Banstead Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over neighbours’ living conditions in Reigate and Banstead?
Learn how selected local decisions described privacy, overlooking, outlook and window safeguards.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 33 of 116
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 14
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 19
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 30
- of 33 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: Reigate and Banstead LPA (51.25324, −0.191844). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Reigate and Banstead Borough Council appeal findings
Privacy, outlook and window safeguards
The selected examples lean towards allowed outcomes, unlike the matched local set, and some give conclusions without their earlier analysis.
Counted against appeals
Overlooking and privacy loss
Unacceptable overlooking at No 15
The Inspector concluded that removing the garage and entrance porch would cause unacceptable overlooking and loss of privacy for No 15.
Helped or needed
Window conditions and outlook
Fixed, obscure-glazed north-wall windows
The Inspector said fixed-shut, obscure-glazed first-floor north-wall windows below 1.7 metres could be conditioned so overlooking would not harm neighbours’ privacy.
No unacceptable privacy harm
The Inspector concluded the roof and balcony revisions would not unacceptably harm neighbours through overlooking or loss of privacy.
No adverse effect on outlook
The Inspector concluded the raised patio would not adversely affect No 8’s outlook.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify overlooking or loss of privacy?
- Does it mention first-floor windows or obscure glazing?
- Does it say the proposal harms outlook or feels overbearing?
Some selected Reigate and Banstead examples give only the Inspector’s conclusion, so their detailed assessment 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
4 examples
16 February 2022 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
revisions to approval 16/02565/HHOLD. Form new gable to south of roof with rear first floor wall remaining in the approved position but with balcony. Mirror the kitchen window and patio doors. Hip the roof at the front of the garage
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to privacy and overlooking.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore conclude that the development would not result in unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of 36 or 40 [name]. As such, the proposal would accord with Policy DES1 of the Local Plan1 and Supplementary Planning Guidance2 which, amongst other things, seek to ensure existing occupiers are not adversely affected by overlooking or loss of privacy.
Paragraph 11 · Source pages 2, 3
7 February 2024 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a 2 storey rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
I consider the main issue to be the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] in terms of the developments potential to appear oppressive and overbearing and result in overlooking leading to a loss of privacy.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore conclude in respect of the main issue that the proposed extension would not cause harm to the amenity of the neighbouring occupiers by reason of being overbearing or appearing oppressive. Further, providing the two new first floor windows in the north wall are fixed shut below 1.7 metres and obscure glazed, matters that if I were to allow the appeal could be conditioned, the potential for overlooking leading to a loss of privacy would not result in harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of number [address].
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
20 March 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
partial demolition of existing rear extension and construction of a single-storey rear extension with a flat roof and roof lantern.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with particular regard to being overbearing and a loss of outlook.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would have an acceptable impact on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers. It would therefore accord with Policy DES1 of the Reigate & Banstead Local Plan Development Management Plan 2019 which requires new development, amongst other things, to not adversely impact upon the amenity of occupants of existing nearby buildings including by way of being overbearing and obtrusive.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
5 December 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
raised patio at rear including perimeter walls, steps, and screening.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue if the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of No [address], with particular regard to outlook.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude that the proposal would not have an adverse impact on the living conditions of No 8 with regard to outlook. Accordingly, the proposal would comply with the Reigate and Banstead Local Plan Development Management Plan (2019) Policy DES1, insofar as it seeks an appropriate environment for future occupiers whilst not adversely impacting upon the amenity of occupants of existing buildings by way of overbearing and obtrusiveness amongst other things. Further, the proposal would comply with the aims of the guidance within the Supplementary Planning Guidance Householder Extensions and Alterations (2004) insofar as it seeks high quality development that does not appear dominant or overbearing.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
1 example
19 May 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the demolition of existing garage/entrance porch.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers at 15 [name], with particular regard to overlooking and privacy.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Accordingly, I conclude that the proposal would have an adverse effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 15 [name] resulting in harm by way of unacceptable overlooking and loss of privacy. The proposal would therefore conflict with Policy DES1 of the Reigate and Banstead Development Management Plan 2019 insofar as it seeks to ensure proposals are of high quality design and do not adversely impact upon the amenity of occupants of existing nearby buildings.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 3