Vale of White Horse District Council appeal evidence
Refused over neighbour living conditions in Vale of White Horse?
See the neighbour impacts inspectors raised and the effects allowed examples found acceptable.
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 40
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 3
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 4
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 6
- 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: Vale of White Horse LPA (51.634236, −1.441586). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Vale of White Horse District Council appeal findings
Vale neighbours’ outlook, light and overlooking
The selected examples have a different outcome mix from the matched local set, and some extracts do not give full neighbour-impact analysis.
Counted against appeals
Rear extension overbearing No 62
No new 45-degree breach
Although it would not introduce a new 45-degree infringement, the rear extension was found overbearing and intrusive from No 62’s living spaces and adjoining garden.
Helped or needed
No unacceptable neighbour harm found
No impediment to adjoining room
The Inspector concluded the upper-floor extension would not impede living conditions for occupiers of the affected adjoining room.
No harm to Nos 193 or 197
The Inspector concluded the extended dwelling and detached garage would not cause unacceptable loss of light, overbearing, overshadowing or overlooking.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify an overbearing effect from neighbours’ rooms or adjoining garden?
- Have you assessed loss of light, overshadowing and overlooking for each neighbour?
- Is neighbour impact left for a later permission-in-principle stage?
Appeals 68129 and 91198 discuss materials or defer neighbour effects to a later stage. 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
16 April 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
Two-story side extension to accommodate a large downstairs bedroom for an elderly disabled relative and a new master bedroom upstairs. Along with a single-story rear extension is proposed to create a new kitchen dining area.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposals on i) the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area, and ii) the living conditions of neighbours because of overlooking or a perception of overlooking.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
One area of divergence are the materials proposed for the extensions to the dwelling, which would not match those of the existing dwelling. The walls would be larch timber, whilst the roof would be metal. However, the SPD does allow at paragraph 5.27 for divergence if there is justification explaining the appropriateness of the alternative proposed. The appellant, in the Design and [name] submitted with the application, identified that the materials were chosen to soften over time to blend the extensions into their surroundings. The darker brick walls and clay/concrete roof tiles of the existing building would therefore remain the more dominant element of the property, which would accord with the requirements of paragraph 5.28.
Paragraph 11 · Source pages 2, 3
5 September 2024 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
Proposed first floor extension over rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The Main Issue is the effect of the development upon living conditions for occupiers of No [address].
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
On that basis there would be no impediment of living conditions for occupiers of the room affected in the adjoining dwelling from the proposed upper floor extension. In consequence, as my reasoning sets out, I find no conflict with the [name] nor, therefore, with Development Policy 23 of the Vale of White Horse Local Plan Part 1 (adopted 2016) that seeks to prevent development causing significant adverse impacts upon residential amenity. Therefore, taking all matters raised into account, the appeal succeeds subject to the usual plans and timing conditions.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
22 August 2024 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
single-storey rear extension, demolition and rebuilding of the utility room walls, loft conversion, front porch, attached garage and repositioning of the site access.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in this appeal are the effect of the appeal proposal on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area, and its effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Accordingly, the evidence leads to the conclusion that the proposed extended dwelling and the detached garage would not result in unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of Nos 193 or 197 by reason of loss of light, being overbearing, overshadowing or overlooking. Accordingly, the proposal complies with Development Management Policy DP23 of the Local Plan 2031 [name], the guidance in the JDG and the provisions of the Framework.
Paragraph 14 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
2 examples
30 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
permission in principle for residential development of a two-storey 4-5 apartment dwelling with sloping driveway. Ground floor level roof top parking (covered and enclosed), bicycle shed and dustbin store.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether the site is suitable for residential development, having regard to its location, the proposed land use, and the amount of development, with particular regard to the character of the area and the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The main consideration of the effect of the development on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties would be for the second stage of the permission in principle process. There are existing dwellings surrounding the site on [name] and Hillside. I saw that a number of these have windows facing towards the appeal site and gardens between their properties and the site. The appeal site is currently appreciated by these properties as a green and verdant area and the steep slope up to the road is part of the general views from the area.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 3
5 November 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the erection of a two-storey rear extension, one-storey side extension, minor internal works.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal upon the living conditions at [address], with particular regard to visual impact.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposal itself would not introduce a new infringement of the 45-degree rule. However, it would exacerbate the visual dominance of No 64. In my judgement the extension to the rear would impose itself, especially at first-floor level and at close quarters, upon the outlook from the neighbour’s ground and first-floor living spaces, as well as from their immediately adjoining rear garden space, as an overbearing and intrusive presence. By so doing, it would introduce a harmful form of development that would be detrimental to the living conditions at No 62, and one which the SPD specifically seeks to avoid.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2