South Cambridgeshire District Council appeal evidence
Refused over neighbour living conditions in South Cambridgeshire?
See the neighbour effects raised in the selected examples and the relationship inspectors accepted in the allowed example.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 17 of 72
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 3
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 12
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 16
- of 17 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: South Cambridgeshire LPA (52.17285, 0.081262). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
South Cambridgeshire District Council appeal findings
South Cambridgeshire daylight, enclosure and outlook
The selected examples have a more dismissal-heavy outcome mix than the matched local set. Some dismissed extracts decide the appeal on other issues.
Counted against appeals
Sunlight and daylight harm not ruled out
No daylight evidence for No 22
The Inspector said the proposal did not demonstrate that No 22 would avoid harmful sunlight and daylight effects.
Helped or needed
Existing cul-de-sac relationships
No unacceptable enclosure or outlook
The Inspector took account of the dense cul-de-sac and existing dwelling relationship, finding no unacceptable enclosure or outlook impact.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify sunlight or daylight harm to a named neighbour?
- Do your drawings show the existing relationship between the dwellings?
- Could the proposal create enclosure or worsen a neighbour's outlook?
Appeals 86628 and 52035 give conclusion-only living-condition findings, while their dismissals rely on other issues. 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
1 example
10 October 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a first floor side extension, installation of new windows and rooflights.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring properties at No.[address], with particular regard to outlook, and No.[address], with particular regard to privacy.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For these reasons, the proposed development would not result in a sense of enclosure or impact on outlook which would be sufficient to result in an unacceptable impact on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupants of no.[address]. I am also mindful of the relatively high-density nature of the cul de sac and the existing relationship between the dwellings. The resulting relationship between the extension and surrounding buildings would not therefore be particularly unusual. No.[address].
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
27 March 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
erection of a detached garage.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues of the appeal are: • whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the setting of the Listed Building; and • the proposal’s effect on the character and appearance of the area; and • the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of No’s 10 and [address].
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
In accordance with section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, decisions must be taken in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. I have found no harm in respect of the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. However, the proposal would fail to preserve the setting of the listed building, to which I must give considerable importance and weight, and it would also cause harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. These matters bring the proposal into conflict with the development plan. There are no material considerations that would justify a decision other than in accordance with the development plan.
Paragraph 18 · Source page 3
4 February 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
single storey side and rear extension with alteration to existing flat roof, and window to side elevation.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers at [address] (No 22), with particular regard to sunlight and daylight.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the above reasons, the proposed development fails to demonstrate that it would not have a harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 22, with particular regard to sunlight and daylight. It therefore conflicts with South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Policy HQ/1, which requires proposals to protect the amenity of occupiers. It would also be contrary to paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which indicates that planning decisions should ensure that developments create places with a high standard of amenity for existing users.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
22 July 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘extensions to the existing property - single storey front porch extension, rear single storey extension (pd) loft conversion to the rear (pd) internal alterations - installation of new roof lights and demolition of existing single storey garage and construction of new granny annex for applicant’s parents’.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The effects on the character and appearance of the area and on the living conditions at the next door homes at [address] and The Barn, with particular regard to privacy.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The balcony to the proposed rear facing master bedroom would provide elevated rear views, primarily down the appellant’s own back garden. This balcony would be to the side of the extended dwelling closest to [address]. This house is set back from Staithesyde, such that side views from the balcony would be mainly onto its blank gable end. With boundary fencing and vegetation, this would largely preserve privacy within this neighbour’s back garden. With the provision of a 1.8 metre obscure glazed screen to the side of the balcony, there would be very limited harm to the living conditions at No. 49, in respect of any significant loss of privacy.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
5 June 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as a ‘Proposed one and half storey side extension linking to existing rear garage with single storey front and rear extensions and front and rear dormers in existing roof.’
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposed development upon: • The existing building and the character and appearance of the locality, and • The living conditions of No.[address], with particular regard to access to light from the adjacent solar panels.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
[name] have agreed with the Appellants with regards to living conditions, when considered as a whole against the Development Plan and material considerations, this would not be sufficient to override the harm caused towards character and appearance. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal is dismissed.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 3