Tendring District Council appeal evidence
Refused over a neighbour’s outlook in Tendring?
See how the selected examples addressed neighbours’ outlook and living conditions in Tendring.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 14 of 56
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 3
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 11
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 11
- of 14 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: Tendring LPA (51.871341, 1.115052). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Tendring District Council appeal findings
Outlook and internal space in Tendring
The selected examples contain a higher share of allowed appeals than the matched local set. An allowed internal-space example sits at the theme’s edge.
Counted against appeals
Outlook harm at No 28
Material harm to No 28
The stated main issue was outlook. The inspector found material harm to No 28’s living conditions.
Helped or needed
What passed on outlook and space
No unacceptable outlook harm
The outbuilding was found not to cause unacceptable outlook harm to No 14 or other neighbours.
Acceptable internal space
The annexes were found to provide acceptable internal space for future occupiers.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal name the neighbour whose outlook could be harmed?
- Does it explain the material living-condition harm your design is said to cause?
- Does it raise an appearance objection separate from neighbour living conditions?
Appeal 83094 gives only a conclusion on neighbour living conditions and was dismissed over appearance. 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
22 May 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
for a new outbuilding formed to rear of property. Finished in a weatherboard cladding.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, especially the occupiers of [address] (No 14) with particular regard to outlook.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
In conclusion, the development does not cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupants of No 14, or other neighbours, through its effect on outlook. The proposal accords with Policy SP7 of the Tendring District Local Plan 2013-2033 and Beyond Section 1 (2021) which seeks to protect the amenity of existing and future residents and users. It also accords with Policy SPL3 of the Tendring District Local Plan 2013-2033 and Beyond Section 2 (2022) which seeks to ensure buildings and structures are designed and orientated to ensure adequate outlook for future and existing residents. For the same reasons, the proposal does 1 The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 2 Planning permission reference - TEN/212/78 (Condition 4) not conflict with paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which seeks a high standard of amenity for all.
Paragraph 11 · Source pages 2, 3
23 January 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
conversion of stables to residential annexes (retention of).
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in the appeal are whether or not the proposed development is ancillary to the main dwelling, whether the proposed development provides acceptable living conditions for future occupiers with particular regard to internal space and the effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
In conclusion, the annexes would provide acceptable living conditions with regards to internal space. The proposal would accord with Policies SP7 of LP1 and SPL3 of LP2. Together, amongst other matters, these require new development to be well designed, meeting high standards of urban and architectural design.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
18 March 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
siting of two mobile catering units.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in this appeal are: - • The effect of the development on the character and appearance of the site and the surrounding area, with particular reference to the Frinton and Walton Conservation Area (the CA) and [name] and the [name], which are non-designated heritage assets; • The effect of the development on the living conditions of neighbours, having particular regard to disturbance from noise; and: - • Whether the site is a suitable location for the development having particular regard to policies concerned with development in areas at risk of flooding.
Paragraph 6 · Source pages 1, 2
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore find that, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, the development would not have an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of neighbours, having particular regard to disturbance from noise. It would, therefore, comply with the aims of Policies SP7 of LP1 and SPL3 of LP2 in as much as these, together, seek, amongst other things, to protect the amenity of existing and future residents and users with regard to noise, vibration and smell.
Paragraph 35 · Source page 5
10 February 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as removal of existing conservatory and replace with new wraparound side and rear extension. New enclosed entrance porch formed with mono pitch roof.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring property at No [address] (No 28) with particular regard to outlook.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the reasons stated above, I find that the proposal would materially harm the living conditions of No 28. This draws the proposal into conflict with Policy SP7 of the Tendring Local Plan: Section 1 (2021) and Policy SPL3 of the Tendring Local Plan: Section 2 (2022). Collectively, and amongst other things, they seek development to be designed to ensure adequate outlook for future and existing residents and to not have a materially damaging impact on the amenity of occupiers of nearby properties. It would also conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework which seeks a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
21 January 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
removal of existing single storey extension and garage and replace with new side and rear single storey extension. Capping to parapet wall. 2 No. new roof lanterns installed to flat roof.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: • the character and appearance of the host property and area, and • the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers at No [address] with particular regard to outlook.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Although the proposal would not cause harm to the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers, it would have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the host property. Consequently, the proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. The appeal is therefore dismissed.
Paragraph 12 · Source pages 2, 3