Stoke-on-Trent City Council appeal evidence
Refused over neighbour living conditions in Stoke-on-Trent?
See which garden-space and outlook findings in selected examples to compare with 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
- 5 of 29
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 2
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 3
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 4
- of 5 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: Stoke-on-Trent LPA (53.018062, −2.164551). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Stoke-on-Trent City Council appeal findings
Garden space and outlook in Stoke-on-Trent
One allowed extract gives only a conclusion, and a telecom example sits at the edge of this neighbour-living-conditions issue.
Counted against appeals
Outdoor space lost to rear extensions
Amenity space harmed occupiers
The selected dismissed examples linked reduced or inadequate amenity space to harm for existing and future occupants.
Helped or needed
Existing outlook and a garage conclusion
Existing gable limited extra enclosure
In one selected allowed example, a neighbour’s outlook was already constrained by a retaining structure and gable. The extension would be seen against that gable, and added enclosure was not judged materially harmful.
Garage conclusion gives no detail
The selected allowed extract only concludes that the side-garden garage would not unacceptably harm living conditions; it gives no details behind that conclusion.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does your refusal identify how much usable outdoor space would remain?
- Is a neighbour’s outlook already constrained by buildings or structures?
- Does the refusal explain why added enclosure would materially harm living conditions?
The telecom example also concerns siting and appearance, so it is at the edge of this issue. 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
17 May 2022 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
the erection of a double-storey side extension and replacement of rear extensions with a single-storey extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of adjoining occupiers with particular regard to visual impact and light.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
There is no suggestion from the Council that the rear gardens to adjacent properties in [address] are substandard in depth or that they provide unacceptable levels of amenity for the occupiers. The outlook from the rear of No 76 is already constrained, to a degree, by the retaining structure at the foot of the garden and the visual presence above of the gable end to No 33. The side extension would bring the built form of No 33 closer to the appeal site’s side boundary and rear garden boundary to No 76 by around 2.9m according to the Council. However, the addition would be residential in scale and appearance and, when seen in the rear outlook from No 76, and more obliquely from the other adjoining town houses, it would be against the backdrop of the existing gable end to No 33. I accept that there would be some further sense of enclosure to the outlook and rear setting of No 76, but I am not persuaded that the change would materially alter the existing arrangement to a degree that would harm the living conditions of these, or any other adjoining neighbours along [address].
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
4 March 2022 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
the erection of a detached double garage in side garden.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the future occupants of the host dwelling, with particular regard to outlook.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For these reasons, I consider that the proposal would not have an unacceptably harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupants of the dwelling. Therefore, the development would not conflict with the Development Plan, the SPD or the Framework, as referred to above.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
4 March 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a single storey rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether the appeal proposal would result in unacceptable living conditions for the occupants of the dwelling, with particular regard to outdoor amenity space.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Whilst there would be benefits to the applicant through the provision of extra accommodation, I consider that this is outweighed by the significant reduction in the amount of external amenity space. This reduction would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of existing and future occupants. Consequently, the proposal would conflict with the provisions of the Development Plan, the SPD and the Framework, as referred to above.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
6 January 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a single-storey rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of existing and future occupiers, with regard to amenity space.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I find therefore that the proposed extension would not provide adequate living conditions for the existing and future occupants of the dwelling, having regard to the amount of amenity space.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 1
29 September 2021 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the installation of a new 20 metre high monopole supporting 6 No. antennas with a wrap-around equipment cabinet at the base of the column, the installation of 4 No. new equipment cabinets and ancillary development thereto.
Issue identified by the Inspector
In the context of the above, the main issue is the effect of the siting and appearance of the development upon (i) the character and appearance of the area and (ii) the living conditions of the occupiers of nearby residential properties in respect of outlook.
Paragraph 5 · Source pages 1, 2
Reasoning from the decision
From a siting and appearance point of view, I therefore conclude that the proposal would not cause significant harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of nearby residential properties in respect of outlook. Therefore, the proposal would accord with the amenity requirements of paragraph 127 (f) of the Framework.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 3