Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over neighbour living conditions in Stockport Metropolitan?
See how local inspectors assessed outlook, privacy and outdoor space.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 15 of 56
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 3
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 11
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 14
- of 15 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: Stockport LPA (53.393976, −2.128095). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council appeal findings
Stockport neighbours: outlook, privacy and outdoor space
The displayed examples omit an outcome present in the matched local set and offer limited allowed reasoning.
Counted against appeals
Outlook, privacy and outdoor-space concerns
Combined outlook harm
The inspector concluded the combined internal and external impacts would significantly harm a neighbour’s outlook.
Insufficient outdoor living space
The inspector was not satisfied the development would provide an appropriate level of external living space.
Privacy lost through roof window
The inspector concluded that the roof window would cause a harmful loss of privacy for occupants of 37 Broadway.
Helped or needed
No daylight, sunlight or outlook harm
No daylight or outlook loss
The inspector found the rear extension would not harm No 28’s daylight, sunlight or outlook.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify outlook loss from internal or external effects?
- Does it identify privacy loss from a roof window?
- Does it say outdoor living space is inadequate?
Appeal 51673 found no privacy harm. Its displayed extract is conclusion-only. 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
15 December 2022 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a part single, part double rear extension with associated works and front car port conversion.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue of the appeal is the effect of the proposed extension on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] (No 28), with particular reference to loss of daylight and sunlight, and outlook.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude that the proposed extension would not harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No 28 with regard to loss of daylight and sunlight, and outlook. The appeal scheme therefore complies with Policy SIE-1 of the Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council Local Development Framework Core Strategy DPD, March 2011, which states that development that is paying high regard to the built and/or natural environment, within which it is sited, will be given positive consideration. The proposed development also complies with saved Policy CDH1.8 of the Stockport Unitary Development Plan Review, adopted 31 May 2006, which requires a proposal to not cause damage to the amenity of neighbouring properties and it also complies with the guidance within the Extensions and [name]. The proposed development also complies with Paragraph 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework which states decisions should ensure development create places with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
12 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the erection of first floor over existing E(a) shop to create a 2-bedroom dwelling.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of No. [address], with particular regard to outlook
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Overall and in combination from the internal and external impacts, the proposal would therefore significantly harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No. [address] with regard to outlook. As such it would conflict with the [name]-1 and SIE-1 as outlined above.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 2
12 November 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as a [name], [name], [name].
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the development on: a) the character and appearance of the dwelling and surrounding area; b) the living conditions of existing and future occupants of the dwelling having regard to external living space provision; and, c) parking provision and highway safety.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Therefore, I cannot be satisfied that the development would provide an appropriate level of external living space. This would be to the detriment of the living conditions of existing and future occupants of the dwelling. The development conflicts with Policy SIE-1 of the CS, which seeks to deliver development which provides satisfactory levels of amenity for future and existing residents.
Paragraph 17 · Source page 4
24 May 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
bungalow conversion into 2-storey house. 2-storey side extension, accommodation within loft space and front porch including an outhouse replacing existing garage.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in this case are: • the effect of the proposed upward extension and two-storey side extension on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and streetscene. • the effect of the two-storey side extension on the living conditions of No.[address], with regards privacy.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore conclude on the second main issue that the proposals would not result in overlooking or loss of privacy, such that it would cause harm to the living conditions of the neighbours. In this regard, there would be no conflict with CS Policy SIE-1 or saved UPD Policy CDH1.8 in so far as they require development, including residential extensions, to maintain satisfactory privacy and amenity for neighbouring residents. There would also be no conflict with the guidance at paragraph 135 of the Framework that development create places with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 3
7 May 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘amendment to loft general arrangement from approved plans and retention of roof window as-built’.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the development on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers at 37 Broadway, with regard to privacy.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the reasons given above, I conclude that the ‘[name] roof window would result in a harmful loss of privacy for the occupants of 37 Broadway. It would therefore lead to conflict with the requirements of Policy SIE-1 of the Stockport 1 DC/067080 Metropolitan Borough Council (SMBC) [name] ([name] 2011) and Saved Policy CDH1.8 of the SMBC Unitary Development Plan Review ([name] 2006). These policies seek to ensure, amongst other matters, that development takes account of the need to provide satisfactory levels of privacy for existing and neighbouring users and does not result in overlooking or loss of privacy. It would also be contrary to the E&[name] in respect of the relevant guidance to safeguard against an unacceptable loss of privacy on the occupants of neighbouring dwellings. It would further conflict with guidance within the Framework, which generally promotes the importance of good design, including that development provide a high standard of amenity for existing and future users, as well as the National Design Guide, which broadly seeks to ensure that development is well-designed, including a consideration of privacy.
Paragraph 11 · Source pages 2, 3