Tandridge District Council appeal evidence
Refused over neighbours’ privacy in Tandridge?
See the selected privacy findings and missing detail before checking 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
- 21 of 117
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 15
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 6
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 18
- of 21 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: Tandridge LPA (51.227075, −0.043374). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Tandridge District Council appeal findings
Raised patios and neighbours’ privacy in Tandridge
The allowed extracts give conclusions, not physical detail. Dismissed appeal 90614 found privacy acceptable and gives only that conclusion.
Counted against appeals
Raised patio near front windows
Height and proximity enabled overlooking
The patio was above street level and close to front windows, making overlooking likely and seating use visually imposing.
Helped or needed
Allowed conclusions lack physical detail
No physical basis is stated
The allowed extracts conclude that privacy or neighbouring living conditions were not significantly or unacceptably harmed, but do not state which physical facts led to that result.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Is your proposal above street level near neighbours’ front windows?
- Does the refusal explain likely overlooking from a seating area?
- Does it give a separate reason beyond privacy?
Appeal 90614 also covers character, protected trees and site suitability, putting it at the edge of this privacy evidence. 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
1 April 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
second storey rear and side extensions over existing single storey elements plus associated internal alteration.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] with particular reference to privacy.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
In conclusion, the proposal would not have a significant harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] with reference to privacy. It would accord with Policy CSP18 of the Tandridge District Core Strategy (adopted 15 October 2008) and Policy DP7 of the Tandridge District Local Plan Part 2: [name] 2014 – 2029 (adopted July 2014). These policies (amongst other things) state that development must not significantly harm the amenities and privacy of occupiers of neighbouring properties (including their private amenity space) by reason of overlooking or its overshadowing or overbearing effect. It would also comply with paragraph 135 (f) of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) which seeks to ensure a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.
Paragraph 11 · Source pages 2, 3
31 March 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a pitched roof pergola.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the development on: • the character and appearance of the area; and • the living conditions of the occupiers of No. [address], with particular regard to outlook, light, enclosure and overbearing impact.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore find that the development does not result in unacceptable harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. As such, it complies with Policy CSP18 of the Tandridge District Core Strategy 2008 and Policy DP7 of the Tandridge District Local Plan Part 2: [name] 2014 which, amongst other matters, seek to ensure that development does not give rise to unacceptable impacts on the living conditions of nearby residents.
Paragraph 14 · Source page 3
27 March 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
described on the application form as ‘erection of an incidental outbuilding and veranda (Retrospective) at [site address] , Caterham, [postcode] ’.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the development on the living conditions of the occupiers at No [address] with particular regard to outlook.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
In conclusion, the development does not cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupants of No 22. The proposal accords with Policy DP7 of the Tandridge Local Plan - Part 2 [name] (2014) which requires high quality design and seeks to prevent significant harm to neighbouring amenity, including through overbearing impacts. It also accords with Policy CSP 18 of the Tandridge District Core Strategy (2008) which aims to ensure that development does not significantly harm the amenities of neighbouring residents including through visual intrusion. For the same reasons, the proposal does not conflict with paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which seeks a high standard of amenity for all.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
2 examples
18 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the construction of a four bedroom detached dwelling.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on the: • character and appearance of the area; • living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with regard to privacy; and • health and value of nearby protected trees; and whether the site is suitable for the proposed development, having regard to its accessibility to services and facilities.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Overall, the proposal would have an acceptable effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties with regard to privacy.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 2
28 August 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘1. driveway / garage way to be placed at the front of the property. 2. lowered curb in front of property’
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and surrounding area; and on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties with particular reference to privacy.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Due to the differences in levels, the proposed patio above the garage / office structure would be elevated above street level. Any future use of the patio as a seating or amenity area would be visually imposing on the occupiers of the adjacent dwellings, Nos 93 and [address] and would be likely to lead to unacceptable levels of overlooking due to its proximity to windows, particularly those on the front elevation of the adjoining semi, [address]. This would be harmful to the living conditions of the occupiers of those dwellings.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2