Rother District Council appeal evidence
Refused over neighbour living conditions in Rother?
Learn what the selected examples say about outlook, light, enclosure and garden effects.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 11 of 55
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 4
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 7
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 11
- of 11 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: Rother LPA (50.951652, 0.538869). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Rother District Council appeal findings
Rother neighbours: projection, depth and outlook
One dismissed example also covers heritage, character and landscape harm; its selected extract is conclusion-only.
Counted against appeals
Rother dismissed neighbour-harm findings
Annexe scale harmed neighbours
The Inspector concluded that the annexe’s siting, bulk and height unacceptably harmed neighbours’ living conditions.
Living-condition harm, without detail
The selected conclusion says the first-floor extension harmed neighbouring living conditions, without explaining the particular outlook or light effect.
Helped or needed
Depth, projection and outlook
Limited projection avoided dominance
The limited projection was not dominant from the set-back first-floor window, and nearby ground-floor windows and gardens were not affected.
Modest depth reduced enclosure
The Inspector said its modest depth meant it would not have Appeal A’s overbearing presence or sense of enclosure.
Outlook conclusion lacks design detail
The allowed decision found no significant harm to Chippings’ outlook, but the selected extract does not show why.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify harm from projection, depth, bulk or height?
- Which neighbour windows, patio areas or gardens does it say are affected?
- Does your design show why any view would not feel enclosed?
Several selected Rother extracts give conclusions rather than the full site assessment. 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
11 August 2023 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
first floor rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the development on (i) the character and appearance of the host dwelling and area and (ii) the living conditions of the occupants of No 1 and No 3 [name], with particular regard to outlook and light.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
No 3 is located broadly to the southeast of the appeal site and would not experience a loss of light. The first floor window at No 3 is set in from the boundary and there would be some visibility of the extension from it. However, because of the extension’s limited projection it would not be a dominant feature. Ground floor windows in the next door properties and their gardens would not be affected due to the siting of the existing single-storey extensions. Overall, the proposal would not have a significant overbearing impact on the living conditions of No 1 or No [address] Cottages, and it would not harmfully impact the outlook from, or availability of natural light to, those properties including their gardens.
Paragraph 11 · Source pages 2, 3
12 July 2023 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a single storey rear extension & front porch.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of occupiers of the neighbouring property, Chippings, with particular regards to outlook.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Accordingly, I conclude that the proposed development would not lead to any significant harm to the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers of Chippings, with particular regards to outlook. It would therefore comply with Policy OSS4(ii) of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy (2014) and Policy DHG9(i) of the Development and Site Allocations Local Plan (2019). These policies and guidance seek to ensure - amongst other matters - that new developments do not have an unacceptable impact on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.
Paragraph 15 · Source pages 2, 3
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
19 February 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
two storey rear extension and alterations.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in both appeals is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to it being a dominant and overbearing presence when viewed from the garden; and harming outlook from a bedroom window.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
The extension would clearly be visible from the neighbour’s rear patio area and garden. However, its more modest depth means that its effect would be more limited. It would not have the same overbearing presence or create the same sense of enclosure as Appeal A when stood in the neighbour’s garden/patio area and overall, I find that this element would not cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the neighbours.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 2
13 February 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘provision of an extension to the first-floor and a porch to the ground floor’.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: i) the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the appeal dwelling and the significance of the Listed Building ‘[address] The Old Bakery The Polhills’; ii) the effect of the proposal on the landscape character and appearance of the area; and iii) the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings in respect of light and outlook.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
The proposal would harm the significance of the Listed Building. There would additionally be harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and area and harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. Even if I had not identified harm to landscape character and appearance, I find that the benefits argued by the appellant would not outweigh the harm that would be caused. The proposal would conflict with the development plan when it is read as a whole, and material considerations do not indicate that a decision contrary to the development plan should be reached.
Paragraph 36 · Source page 6
14 February 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as proposed conversion of garage including roof extension and addition of dormers to provide ancillary annexe for Solpax.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The first main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the locality. The second main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of ‘[name] with particular regard to visual impact and privacy.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I have found that due to the siting, bulk and height of the proposed annexe, the proposal would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the locality and the living conditions of the occupiers of ‘[name]. As a consequence, the proposal would be contrary to [name] OSS4 & EN3 and [name] DHG9 & DEN 1, which are consistent with paragraphs 126 and 130 of the Framework. For the reasons set out above I give this harm and conflict significant weight.
Paragraph 27 · Source page 4