West Lindsey District Council appeal evidence
Refused over neighbour living conditions in West Lindsey?
See which privacy, noise, light and outlook concerns appear in the selected examples 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
- 8 of 24
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 1
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 6
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 5
- of 8 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 Lindsey LPA (53.392847, −0.476971). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
West Lindsey District Council appeal findings
West Lindsey neighbour privacy, noise, light and outlook
The selected examples omit dismissed decisions from the matched local set, so their outcome mix differs. Appeal 31447 also covered character and flood risk; only its outlook reasoning is used.
Counted against appeals
Privacy, noise, light and outlook harm
Privacy and noise at the annex
The Inspector concluded that privacy and noise and disturbance would harm occupants of the annex and No.10.
Infill and close extensions
A glazed infill beside Number 2A was found overbearing. Another extension near Number 47’s conservatory, windows and garden was found oppressive to its outlook.
Light and outlook losses
The Inspector concluded that the rear and side extension would harm one neighbour’s light and outlook, and another neighbour’s light to a lesser extent.
Helped or needed
Privacy conclusion in the allowed example
Privacy remained acceptable
The Inspector concluded that the proposal would not unacceptably harm living conditions, particularly privacy.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Which neighbour’s privacy, light, outlook or noise does the refusal identify?
- Does the notice explain the height, scale or distance causing the harm?
- Are windows, gardens, conservatories or an annex specifically discussed?
Several selected West Lindsey extracts give conclusions only, so the review cannot show the evidence behind them. 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
8 July 2021 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
1no. detached dwelling and garage, including demolition of outbuildings to form new access.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area; and upon the living conditions of the occupiers of 59 and [address], with particular regard to privacy.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore conclude that the living conditions of the occupiers of 59 and [address] would not be unacceptably harmed, with particular regard to privacy. As such, the proposal complies with the ‘amenity considerations’ of LP Policy LP26. It also complies with paragraph 127 of the Framework in this regard.
Paragraph 12 · Source pages 2, 3
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
31 December 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
for change of use of annex to single residential dwelling including associated landscaping and car parking.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • The effect of the development on the living conditions of occupants of both the annex and [address] (No.10), with particular regard to overlooking and noise and disturbance; • The effect of the development on the living conditions of occupants of the annex, with particular regard to outlook and internal space; and, • Whether the site is a suitable location for housing, with particular regard to the local development plan spatial strategy. 1 Condition 4 of planning permission [name]: 123819
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the above reasons, I conclude on this main issue that the development adversely harms the living conditions of occupants of the annex and No.10, with particular regard to privacy and noise and disturbance. It therefore conflicts with policy S53 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan, adopted April 2023 (CLLP). This seeks, amongst other things, that development relates well to the site and does not result in likely conflict with existing uses unless the amenity of occupiers of the new development will be satisfactory with the ongoing normal use of the neighbouring site. It would also conflict with advice in paragraph 135 of the 2 [name]: 123819 Framework which seeks that planning decisions should ensure a high standard of amenity for future users.
Paragraph 10 · Source pages 2, 3
2 February 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a two-storey infill extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
These are the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area and on the setting of the Church of [name]; and the effect on the living conditions of the occupants of number [address] (number 2A), with regard to outlook.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposed extension would infill an existing space between buildings at first-floor level adjacent to the side boundary/driveway with number 2A. Although the use of glazing would, to a certain extent, have less of an impact than a solid wall, the proposed extension would be an imposing feature and would have a strong physical presence that would overbear and have a domineering effect on number 2A. Consequently, I consider that the proposal would have an unacceptably harmful effect on the amenity of the occupants of number 2A and, therefore, it would conflict with the provisions of the Development Plan, as referred to above.
Paragraph 12 · Source pages 2, 3
6 July 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the construction of a rear and side extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed side extension on the living conditions of the occupiers of Nos 3 and [address], by way of light and outlook.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
In conclusion, I find that the proposal would be harmful to the living conditions of the occupiers of No [address] of light and outlook, and to a lesser extent to the occupiers of No [address] of impact on light. On this basis, it would conflict with Policy LP26 of the LP and, accordingly, I dismiss the appeal.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 3
19 April 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
one and a half storey side extensions, new roof with accommodation within roofspace and new external finishes.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in this case are the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; its effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with regards to outlook; and whether the proposal would be acceptable with regards to flood risk.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposed development would greatly extend the size and height of the existing dwelling a way that would greatly alter its appearance. A modest bungalow on a comfortable garden plot would be transformed into a large and bulky dwelling with a gable roof. 10.I find that this would result in an incongruous form of development, out of character with the appearance of other dwellings along [address]. 11.Further to the above, the proposed changes would not appear subservient to the host property, but would overwhelm it and this would result in an unduly dominant form of development that would draw attention to itself and in so doing, would severely disrupt the area’s identified uniform qualities. 12.Taking all of the above into account, I find that the development would harm the character and appearance of the area, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; to Local Plan1 Policies LP17 and LP26; and to Policy 2 of the Saxilby with Ingleby Neighbourhood Plan (2017), which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character. Living conditions 13.The appeal property is located such that the rear elevation of Number [address] faces directly towards the side of the appeal property. During my site visit, I observed that No 47 has a rear facing conservatory and a small rear garden. 14.The proposed development would be set very close to No 47’s conservatory, rear facing windows and rear garden. I find that the height, scale and close proximity of the proposal would be such that it would appear to “loom” above the rear of No 47 in an oppressive manner. 15.I find that this would be to the extent that the proposal would unduly dominate the outlook from that property. 16.Given this, I find that the development would harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with regards to outlook, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework and to Local Plan Policy LP26, which together amongst other things, seek to protect residential amenity. Flood risk 17.Flood risk maps show that the appeal property is located within [name] 2. In the absence of any substantive evidence, it is not possible for me to surmise 1 Reference: Central Lincolnshire Local Plan (2017). 2 that the proposed development would be flood resistant and would not increase flood risk elsewhere. 18.Given this, I am unable to conclude that the development would not give rise to an unacceptable flood risk and the proposal is therefore contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework and to Local Plan Policy LP14, which together amongst other things, seek to provide for flood protection and resilience.
Paragraph 9 · Source pages 2, 3