Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over neighbour living conditions in Stockton-on-Tees?
See the neighbour effects inspectors found harmful and the facts to check against your refusal notice.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 10 of 30
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 0
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 10
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 9
- of 10 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: Stockton-on-Tees LPA (54.562787, −1.328951). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council appeal findings
Stockton-on-Tees outlook and garden-space harm
The matched local set has no allowed appeal. The selected examples cannot show a successful local comparison.
Counted against appeals
Outlook and garden-space harm
Outlook harm from roof work and flues
Roof work, a flue and a dormer were each found harmful to a neighbour’s outlook.
Private garden space harmed
The two-storey rear extension was found to cause significant harm to a neighbour’s private outdoor garden space.
No allowed example matched
No allowed local comparison
This snapshot has no allowed local example for this issue.
Outlook effects needed addressing
The dismissed outlook examples show that a proposal still had to avoid harming a neighbour’s outlook.
Garden amenity needed safeguarding
The garden-space dismissal shows that the extension needed to provide privacy and amenity for occupants.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify harm to a neighbour’s outlook?
- Does your proposal reduce privacy or amenity in a neighbouring garden?
- Does the refusal identify design details that worsen the effect?
Appeal 56249 found outlook acceptable, but its displayed extract does not explain the dismissal. These decisions do not predict another result.
Appeal evidence examples
Read the reasoning in matched appeal decisions
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.
Dismissed appeal examples
5 examples
29 May 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
attic conversion to include raising of the roof. Front and rear single storey extensions and conversion of garage.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area; and • whether the proposal would provide acceptable living conditions for the occupiers of No [address] (No 10) with regards to privacy and outlook.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore conclude that the proposed development would result in moderate harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of No 10 with regards to outlook. It would conflict with [name] SD3 and SD8 which together requires new development to not harm the amenity of residents of neighbouring properties.
Paragraph 15 · Source page 3
28 March 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
to erect single storey extension and install log burner and flue.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the development, with particular reference to the flue, on: • the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the wider area; and • the living conditions of the occupants of the neighbouring dwelling at [address], with particular regard to outlook.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude that the flue has a materially harmful impact on the living conditions of the occupants of [address] in respect of outlook. This conflicts with Policy SD8 of the Local Plan, which amongst other things looks to ensure new development responds positively to the amenity of all occupants of land and buildings.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 2
18 March 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
two-storey rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed extension on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, with particular reference to privacy, outlook and natural light; and • whether the proposed development would provide acceptable living conditions for the occupiers of No [site address] (No 1) with regards to the provision of private outdoor space.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore conclude that the proposed development would cause significant harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of No 1 with regards to private outdoor garden space. It would conflict with Policy SD8 e. and the SPD as it would fail to provide privacy and amenity for all existing and future occupants.
Paragraph 15 · Source page 3
28 August 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the construction of a first floor terrace structure to rear of existing property to be accessed via bedroom Juliette balcony.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • The effects of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the host property and of the area; and • The effects of the proposed development upon the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] with particular regard to outlook.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
These factors would all serve to moderate the effects of the proposal’s scale and design upon the occupiers of No 5 so that it would not be unduly overbearing nor result in a harmful loss of outlook. As a result, I find that the effects of the proposed development upon the living conditions of the occupiers of No 5 with particular regard to outlook would be acceptable. In respect of these living conditions, the proposal complies with Policy SD8 of the LP which sets out that developments should respond positively to the amenity requirements of existing occupiers. The proposal also complies with the advice within the Framework which requires development to ensure a high standard of amenity for existing land users.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 3
11 October 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as “dormer window extension to rear, insertion of window to gable at side and 2no roof lights to front”.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues of the appeal are the effect of the proposed development: • on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area; and • on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers of [address], with particular regard to outlook.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore find on this main issue, that the development causes unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of No.1, with particular regard to outlook. This would conflict with Policy SD8 of the LP which seeks, amongst other things, to protect the amenity of existing and future occupiers. The proposed development would also be contrary to Paragraph 130 of the Framework, which seeks to provide sufficient levels of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 3