South Hams District Council appeal evidence
Refused over neighbour privacy in South Hams?
See what selected examples say about neighbour privacy, private benefits and less harmful designs.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 31 of 91
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 13
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 18
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 28
- of 31 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 Hams LPA (50.354789, −3.807543). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
South Hams District Council appeal findings
Neighbour privacy versus private benefit in 82830
The selected examples lean slightly more toward dismissals than the matched local set. Usable privacy reasoning is thin: 20005 and 82830 give conclusions; 88155 concerns traffic, 88157 biodiversity, and 84882 finds neighbour effects neutral.
Counted against appeals
Private benefit did not suffice
Less harmful design not excluded
In 82830, the Inspector treated the appellant's living-condition benefits as private and was not persuaded they could not be achieved less harmfully.
Helped or needed
Privacy was found acceptable
First-floor window accepted
In 20005, the Inspector concluded that the enlarged first-floor window would have an acceptable effect on neighbouring living conditions and privacy.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does your refusal identify a privacy harm that a less harmful design could avoid?
- What drawings show your proposal's effect on neighbouring privacy?
- Are the claimed benefits private, and why can this design not be less harmful?
The South Hams selected examples offer little privacy analysis beyond 20005 and 82830's conclusions. 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
30 August 2022 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
enlargement of first floor window on south west elevation.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers having particular regard to privacy.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore conclude that the proposal would have an acceptable effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. There would be no conflict with Policy DEV1 of the Local Plan2 or the overarching objectives of the SPD3, which both seek appropriate standards of privacy.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
1 May 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
the erection of four garages to serve approved dwellings.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the scheme’s compliance with local and national policy, with particular regard to the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring properties through effects on privacy, additional traffic impacts and highway safety, removal of landscaping, flooding and drainage.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
As the proposal would not increase the amount of traffic in use from the approved dwellings, it would have little effect on traffic volume or highway safety. However, due to the restricted width of the highways in the immediate area, there would be potential for adverse highway effects during construction. However, the wider site development is already subject to a Construction Management Plan (CMP), due to this issue. It would, therefore, be appropriate to seek an addendum to the existing CMP, to mitigate any potentially harmful effects during construction of the garages, via an appropriately worded condition.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
16 January 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
removal of rear conservatory and side garage. Construction of two storey side extension and single storey rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers at [address] in terms of privacy effects.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The benefits that would be generated through the enhancement of the living conditions of the appellant are largely private, rather than beneficial to the wider public. In any event, I am not persuaded that the beneficial outcomes could not be achieved in a manner less harmful.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 2
1 May 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the construction of 1no. dwelling.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: i) the effect of the proposal the living conditions of occupants of adjacent properties, with particular regard to privacy, as a result of the proposed first-floor balconies, and ii) whether the proposal provides adequate car parking provision for future occupiers, and iii) whether the proposal can demonstrate compliance with the statutory biodiversity net gain requirements.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
The main parties agree that the development would be required to provide statutory BNG. Therefore, if the appeal were to succeed, it would be subject to the statutory pre-commencement biodiversity gain condition (‘the condition’) as set out in the Act. In this scenario, guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Guidance (the PPG) states that it would generally be inappropriate, when determining a planning application (and therefore an appeal) for a development subject to BNG, to be refused on the grounds that the biodiversity gain objective will not be met. The PPG advises that more broadly, consideration may be required as to whether ‘the condition’ is capable of being successfully discharged.
Paragraph 24 · Source pages 4, 5
24 February 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the change of use of a mobile home in a garden to long term residential letting.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in this appeal are: • Whether the appeal site is a suitable location for the proposed development with reference to the spatial strategy and the development plan; and • whether the development would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupants, with particular regard to floor space.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
No harms have been raised in respect of visual impact, impact on neighbours living conditions or highway safety. This weighs neutrally in the planning balance.
Paragraph 34 · Source page 6