Tunbridge Wells Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over neighbour living conditions in Tunbridge Wells?
See what the selected local examples can and cannot show about neighbour effects.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 7 of 33
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 5
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 2
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 7
- of 7 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: Tunbridge Wells LPA (51.114379, 0.430708). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Tunbridge Wells Borough Council appeal findings
Tunbridge Wells neighbour outlook, daylight and privacy
The selected examples have a different outcome mix from the matched local set, and several extracts lack drawings or measurements.
Counted against appeals
Tunbridge Wells outlook, daylight and privacy harm
Extension: outlook and daylight harm
The Inspector concluded the extension would harm neighbouring living conditions. The listed issue was outlook and daylight, but the extract gives no further explanation.
Bidborough privacy and conservation-area harm
The Inspector concluded the proposal harmed No 1's living conditions, alongside conservation-area harm. The extract gives no further privacy analysis.
Helped or needed
Tunbridge Wells conditions and no neighbour harm
First-floor extension: no material harm
For the first-floor extension, the Inspector was satisfied that No 25 would not be materially harmed. The extract does not give the detailed outlook or shadowing assessment.
Conditioned patio compared with approval
With a suitable condition, the patio changes were not found to have a materially greater impact or significant harm than an approved patio.
Raised patio and steps: no neighbour harm
The Inspector found the raised patio and steps did not harm neighbouring residents' living conditions. The extract does not give site detail behind that finding.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify outlook, daylight, shadowing or privacy harm?
- What drawings or measurements support the stated neighbour harm?
- Does the refusal explain why a condition would not address the harm?
The selected extracts omit site measurements, and appeal 56860 also includes conservation-area harm. 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
17 September 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
first floor extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the neighbours at No [address], with particular regard to outlook and shadowing effects.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I am therefore satisfied that the living conditions of the neighbours at No 25 would not be materially harmed as a result of the proposed first floor extension. There would be no conflict with Policy EN1 of the TWBC Local Plan 2006, the Alterations and [name] and the National Planning Policy Framework and in particular Paragraph 135 all of which amongst other matters seek a high quality of design which respects the amenities of existing and future occupiers.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
23 August 2024 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
the construction of two-storey extension with single- storey element, increase patio area to level throughout, alter existing walls to match appearance of extension, installation of approved bedroom window with different location, removal of existing balcony & installation of full height window, installation of air con unit, timber wall on boundary.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the development on the living conditions of the neighbouring property [address] with specific regard to overlooking and privacy.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Subject to the imposition of a suitable condition, which I discuss further in the following section, I am satisfied that there would not be a materially greater impact or significant harm on the living conditions of [address] than the patio approved under planning permission Ref: 23/03450/FULL. To conclude, I find that the development with conditions accords with policy EN1 of the Tunbridge Wells Local Plan 2006 and guidance contained within the Alterations and Extensions Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), which amongst other things requires development to not result in significant harm to the residential amenities of adjoining occupiers in terms of privacy.
Paragraph 13 · Source pages 3, 4
20 October 2023 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘Raised patio and steps’.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the development on the living conditions of neighbouring residents.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Overall, I am satisfied that the appeal scheme does not harm the living conditions of neighbouring residents. I therefore find the proposal to accord with Policy EN1 of the [site address] Local Plan (adopted 2006). The policy, amongst other matters, seeks for new developments to protect the amenities of neighbouring residents. The appeal scheme also adheres to the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework in respect of providing suitable standards of amenity for existing and future users.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
2 examples
10 September 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
No verified development description was available for this example.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on (i) the character and appearance of the Bidborough Conservation Area and (ii) the living conditions of No 1 [name] and The Old Pump with particular regard to privacy.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
To conclude, the proposal would result in less than substantial harm to the character and appearance of the Bidborough Conservation Area and harm to the living conditions of No 1 [name]. There are no material considerations that would outweigh the conflict with the Development Plan and therefore the appeal is dismissed.
Paragraph 28 · Source pages 4, 5
7 August 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
proposed ground and first floor extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of residents of [address], with specific regard to outlook and daylight.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposed development would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of residents of [address] in the above terms. It would therefore be contrary to Policy EN1 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan, March 2006, which indicates that proposals should not cause significant harm to the amenities of occupiers of neighbouring properties.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2