West Berkshire Council appeal evidence
Refused over neighbour living conditions in West Berkshire?
See the local concerns cited in dismissals and the limited finding from the allowed dormer.
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 66
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 6
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 15
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 16
- 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: West Berkshire LPA (51.449588, −1.304491). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
West Berkshire Council appeal findings
West Berkshire privacy, noise and sunlight findings
The selected examples lean more towards dismissals than the matched local set. The shooting-valley example also covers heritage, transport and landscape issues.
Counted against appeals
Privacy, noise and sunlight concerns
Privacy at No 106
The two-dwelling proposal was found harmful to No 106’s privacy.
Noise, odour and fumes
Noise from a shooting valley was not shown acceptable. A takeaway was not shown to have an acceptable effect regarding noise, odour and fumes.
Sunlight and visual impact
A rear extension was found harmful to No 5 in relation to sunlight and visual impact.
Helped or needed
No harm to privacy and outlook
Northern privacy and outlook
The Inspector concluded that the side-garage dormer would not harm the northern properties’ privacy or outlook.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Which neighbour is said to lose privacy, sunlight or outlook?
- What evidence addresses noise, odour or fumes at nearby homes?
- Does the refusal name the neighbour and the alleged harm?
The allowed dormer extract states its conclusion, not the analysis behind it. 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
1 example
5 October 2023 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
the construction of dormer to side of garage roof.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of the properties to the north having regard to privacy and outlook.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the proposed development would not cause harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of the properties to the north having regard to privacy and outlook. Accordingly, the proposal would comply with Policies ADPP1, CS14 and CS19 of the [name] (2006 – 2026) 2012 (CS) where these policies seek to protect residential amenity. The proposal would also comply with the [name] – West Berkshire Supplementary Planning Document Part 2 Residential Development 2006, and with the [name] insofar as it would protect neighbouring amenity. Further, the proposal would align with the National Planning Policy Framework, which seeks to create places with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
25 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
erection of 2no. semi-detached dwellings.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the area; and • the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], with particular regard to privacy.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore find that the proposed development would have an unacceptable and harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 106, with particular regard to privacy. It would conflict with Policy SP7 of the Local Plan which provides that, amongst other things, development proposals will be expected to show how they have responded positively to both national and local design guidance, including design guides or codes, and with part b. of Policy DM30 of the Local Plan which provides that, amongst other things, development proposals will be supported where there is no unacceptable harm in terms of any significant overlooking of land and buildings that results in a harmful loss of privacy.
Paragraph 22 · Source page 4
26 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
for proposed hospitality use and change in opening hours of Lodge Building, extension of shooting area, retention of temporary facilities building, and increased use of existing marquee.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues raised by this appeal are: • the effect of the proposed development on the setting of the [name] listed buildings comprising [name] and [name], • the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of neighbouring properties in respect of noise, • whether or not the proposed development would promote sustainable transport choices and / or lead to highways safety implications, and • whether the proposal would conserve and enhance the natural and scenic beauty of the North Wessex Downs National Landscape (NWDNL), and if it does not, whether any harm is outweighed by exceptional circumstances, and it can be demonstrated that the proposal is in the public interest.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
For the above reasons, I conclude that while the proposed hospitality use and increased erection and use of the existing marquee would not be harmful, it has not been demonstrated that the proposed additional shooting valley would not be unacceptably harmful to the living conditions of neighbouring properties in respect of noise. On this basis the proposal would be contrary to Policies SP2 and DM5 of the Local Plan, which amongst other things, seeks development that would not cause noise of a level which would disturb areas that are valued for their tranquillity in terms of recreation or amenity.
Paragraph 27 · Source page 5
19 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described on the application form as, “Change of use from [name] to a Takeaway shop. Barber shop will move to a different location or probably next door”.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • pedestrian safety, highway safety, and the free flow of traffic; and • the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, with particular regard to noise, odour, and fumes.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore find that it has not been demonstrated that the proposed development would have an acceptable effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, with particular regard to noise, odour, and fumes. It would conflict with Policy DM3 of the Local Plan which provides that, amongst other things, development that would have an unacceptable impact on the health or wellbeing of existing communities will not be permitted, and with part a. of Policy DM5 of the Local Plan which provides that, amongst other things, development proposals should ensure that there would be no harm to the amenity of occupants of neighbouring land and buildings, through an unacceptable increase in pollution, including from noise and odour.
Paragraph 17 · Source pages 3, 4
2 April 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
retrospective approval of single storey rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the development on the living conditions of the occupiers of 5 [site address] , with particular regard to sunlight and visual impact.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore find that the development has an unacceptable and harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 5, with particular regard to sunlight and visual impact. It conflicts with part f. of Policy DM28 of the [site address] Local Plan Review 2023 – 2041 (adopted June 2025) (Local Plan Review) which provides that, amongst other things, an extension will be permitted where the proposal is not overbearing or of a form which would be detrimental to the amenity of nearby residents by virtue of loss of sunlight, and with parts a. and c. of Policy DM30 of the Local Plan Review which provides that, amongst other things, when considering the impact on the living conditions of existing residential dwellings, development proposals will be supported where there is no unacceptable harm in terms of any significant loss of sunlight to land and buildings and development resulting in an overbearing impact.
Paragraph 15 · Source page 3