Swale Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over neighbour living conditions in Swale?
See which extensions were found harmful to neighbours’ outlook and when selected examples did not show significant 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
- 15 of 64
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 8
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 7
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 13
- 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: Swale LPA (51.341687, 0.813171). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Swale Borough Council appeal findings
How Swale extensions affected neighbours’ outlook
The selected examples mostly state the Inspector’s conclusion, not the earlier site analysis, so they cannot show why each extension was judged harmful or acceptable.
Counted against appeals
Outlook and enclosure concerns
Outlook and enclosure at No. 93
The first-floor rear extension was found to unacceptably harm No. 93’s outlook and sense of enclosure.
Outlook from a rear extension
A single-storey rear extension with a rooflight was found harmful to the neighbour’s outlook.
Helped or needed
Swale extensions not found harmful
Depth above advice
A rear infill extension was found not to materially harm adjoining occupiers despite exceeding the SPG’s numerical depth figure.
Side garage outlook and light
The side garage extension was found not to harm outlook or light for neighbouring occupiers.
Limited conflict with advice
A rear extension with four rooflights was concluded not to cause significant harm despite limited conflict with SPG advice.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify outlook, daylight or sense of enclosure?
- How does your extension’s depth compare with the council’s stated guidance?
- Which neighbour windows, rooms or views does the refusal say will be harmed?
The selected Swale examples cover extensions only, and most supplied extracts give conclusions rather than detailed site reasoning. 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
5 June 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a single storey rear infill extension with mono-pitch glazed roof.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of adjoining occupiers.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Thus, in this instance the extension as proposed would not be a significant harm to residential amenity, which is the test set out in development plan policies referred to earlier. The living conditions of adjoining occupiers would be not be materially harmed, notwithstanding that the depth exceeds the numerical figure in the SPG.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
8 April 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
an extension to the side of the existing detached garage.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue raised by this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of No.[address], particularly in regard of outlook and light.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would not harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No.[address], particularly in regard of outlook and light. As such, the proposed development would comply with Policies DM14 and DM16 of the [name] 2031: The Swale Borough Local Plan 2017. These policies seek, amongst other matters, development to protect residential amenity and to cause no significant harm to amenities.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
22 October 2024 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a single storey rear extension incorporating four rooflights.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed extension on living conditions for neighbouring residents, with particular regard to daylight and outlook at No [address].
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Taking the above points together, and notwithstanding the limited conflict with advice in the SPG, I conclude that the proposed extension would not cause significant harm to living conditions for neighbouring residents. It would therefore comply with Policies DM14 and DM16 of the 2017 Swale Local Plan which together seek to ensure that development, including extensions, causes no significant harm to amenity.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
2 examples
16 September 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
First floor rear extension including utilizing roof space in new extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] (No.93), with particular regard to outlook and sense of enclosure.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the proposal would unacceptably harm the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers at No.93, with particular regard to outlook and sense of enclosure. As such, I find conflict with Policies DM14 and DM16 of the SBLP. These require, amongst things, that extensions protect residential amenity. For the same reasons, the proposal would also be contrary to the guidance within the SPG.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
31 March 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the erection of a single storey rear extension including 1no. rooflight.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue raised by this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of No.[address], particularly in regard to outlook and light.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would be harmful to the living conditions of the occupiers of No.[address], particularly in regard to outlook. The proposal would, therefore, conflict with Policies DM14 and DM15 of the Swale Borough Local Plan and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework. These policies seek, amongst other matters, residential extensions to protect residential amenity.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2