Spelthorne Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over neighbour living conditions in Spelthorne?
Learn what selected Spelthorne appeals say about outdoor space, HMO fallback claims and alleged neighbour harm.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 26 of 70
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 13
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 13
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 22
- of 26 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: Spelthorne LPA (51.424808, −0.467983). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Spelthorne Borough Council appeal findings
Spelthorne outdoor space, HMO and neighbour impacts
The selected examples lean towards allowed outcomes, unlike the matched local set. Appeal 88360 sits at this theme's edge because it concerns future occupants' outdoor space.
Counted against appeals
Outdoor space and HMO fallback concerns
Juliet balconies did not replace outdoor space
The Inspector found the roof garden would be cramped and unattractive. Juliet balconies would not provide independent outdoor space.
Fallback HMO did not remove harm
A smaller Class C4 HMO which did not need planning permission did not show the appeal scheme would provide satisfactory living conditions.
Helped or needed
Where Spelthorne inspectors found no neighbour harm
No adverse neighbour impact found
The Inspector concluded that the proposal would not adversely affect neighbouring occupiers' amenities.
Adjacent dwelling not found harmed
The Inspector concluded that the annex proposal would not harm the adjacent dwelling's occupiers.
No undue noise or disturbance found
The Inspector concluded that the bingo hall would not cause undue harm through noise and disturbance.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does your refusal identify cramped or poor-quality outdoor space?
- Are Juliet balconies being counted as independent outdoor space?
- Is a fallback HMO used to answer claimed living-condition harm?
The Spelthorne allowed examples state conclusions without the analysis behind them. 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
18 June 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
described as “Internal alterations to facilitate the Change of use from C4 (6 bed HMO) to [name] (7 [name])”.
Issue identified by the Inspector
Whilst the Council has expressed its objections to the scheme within a single reason for refusal, this reason covers multiple issues, and as such I have broken this into the following main issues: whether the proposed development would provide an acceptable standard of accommodation for future occupants, with regard to the provision of communal space, outlook, odour and parking; and the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupants of adjoining properties, with particular reference to refuse storage, and noise and disturbance.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore find that the proposal would not result in any adverse impacts on the amenities of neighbouring occupiers and would accord with the relevant requirements of Policies PS2, H1 of the LP, insofar as they as they seek to ensure that development does not harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.
Paragraph 29 · Source page 4
8 June 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
described on the application form as “The demolition of a garage to be replaced with a self-contained annex and the provision of two additional off-street parking spaces”.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in this appeal are: - Whether the proposal would result in the creation of an independent dwelling. - The effect on the character and appearance of the locality. - The effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of the adjacent dwelling at [address], with regard to noise and disturbance and whether the development would appear overbearing.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For these reasons, it is concluded that the living conditions of the occupiers of the adjacent dwelling would not be harmed.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 3
12 February 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
for the change of use of ground floor from vacant bank to form a bingo hall.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposed development: on the vitality and viability of [site address] town centre; and on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with particular regard to noise and disturbance.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude that the proposed development should not result in undue harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with particular regard to noise and disturbance. In this regard, it would comply with Policy EN11 of the CS which seeks to minimise the adverse impact of noise. Moreover, there would be no conflict with paragraph 135 of the Framework which seeks a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.
Paragraph 18 · Source page 4
Dismissed appeal examples
2 examples
6 May 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
erection of an additional storey and rear extension to create 14 total residential units (including the re-configuration of 6 existing units) and internal alterations to [name] on the ground floor.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in this appeal are: • The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area. • Whether satisfactory living conditions would be provided for the future occupants of the proposed development with particular regard to outdoor amenity space. • The effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of occupants of Number [address] with particular regard to outlook, privacy and access to light. • Whether vehicle parking provision would be satisfactory and the effect of the proposed development on highway safety.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For those reasons, the communal roof garden would be a cramped and unattractive outdoor amenity space for future occupants of those flats, thus providing them with poor quality living conditions. Apart from flat 4, those flats would have Juliet balconies, which could be opened to give occupants a sense of the outdoor environment. However, the Juliet balconies would not create outdoor spaces independent from the indoor environment, being more akin to large opening windows. As such, they would not function in the same way as outdoor amenity space and they would not overcome the harm identified.
Paragraph 24 · Source page 5
27 April 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a rear hip to gable extension, with 2 no. flank dormers, and 2 no. rooflights, to facilitate loft conversion into habitable space. Erection of a single storey rear extension. Changes to fenestration and extension of dropped kerb with new hardstanding on front driveway. All to facilitate the conversion of a C3 dwellinghouse into a 7-person HMO (Sui-Generis) with associated parking and amenities.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in this appeal are (i) the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, (ii) whether the proposal would provide satisfactory living conditions for future occupants with particular regard to outlook from ground floor bedrooms and the amount of outdoor amenity space, and (iii) if harm arises whether it is outweighed by any fallback position.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
The appeal scheme would therefore have a greater adverse impact on the living conditions of its future occupants than the fallback small Class C4 HMO development would have on its occupants. Consequently, the fallback development does not negate the harm identified on the second main issue. That a Class 4 HMO use of the appeal property does not require planning permission is not necessarily an indicator that its occupants would be provided with satisfactory living conditions.
Paragraph 33 · Source page 6