Wiltshire Council appeal evidence
Refused over neighbour living conditions in Wiltshire?
See the neighbour impacts inspectors found harmful and the limits of the allowed comparison.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 31 of 127
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 5
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 26
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 24
- of 31 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: Wiltshire LPA (51.300637, −1.947286). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Wiltshire Council appeal findings
Wiltshire neighbour impacts: outlook and noise
The selected examples have a different outcome mix from the matched local set and provide limited allowed comparison.
Counted against appeals
Overbearing outlook and missing noise evidence
Upper floor projected too close
Along the shared boundary, the upper floor projected almost 3.5m beyond the neighbour’s rear wall and was judged towering and overbearing.
No cogent noise evidence
Without cogent evidence to the contrary, the Inspector concluded future residents would not have adequate living conditions because of noise.
Helped or needed
Allowed case: no neighbour harm
No harm was concluded
The extract concludes the dwelling and garage would not harm neighbouring occupiers’ living conditions. It gives no design reason.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does your refusal say the extension would overbear a bedroom window or garden?
- What evidence addresses noise for future occupiers?
- Does the notice separate neighbour harm from character and appearance?
Appeal 91163 is edge-of-scope, with no neighbour harm found before dismissal on character, while Appeal 88705 gives only a conclusion. 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
13 May 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
the demolition of sheds and greenhouse and erection of a dwelling and garage.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • whether the development would be in a suitable location, with particular regard to the settlement strategy, character and appearance of the area and access to services and facilities; • the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties; and • the effect on the River Avon Special Area of Conservation. 1 Drawing number 2323-4a
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the foregoing reasons I therefore conclude that the proposed development would not harm the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring properties. In that regard the proposal would not conflict with Core Policy 57 of the WCS in so far as it seeks development if a high-quality design which is expected, among other things, to achieve appropriate levels of amenity.
Paragraph 23 · Source page 5
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
29 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
revisions to approved application PL/2025/05574 - extensions to side and rear, raise roof with adaptions to provide rooms in roofspace, render Bradstone walls.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The Council has raised no concerns regarding the increase in ridge height at the property, side and rear extensions, or inclusion of roof lights to the front roof slope. Based on my observations at the site visit I have no reason to take a different view. The main issues in dispute are: • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area; and • the effect on the living conditions of adjoining occupiers, with particular regard to outlook and privacy.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I am satisfied that the proposed development would not harm the living conditions of adjoining occupiers with particular regard to outlook and privacy. Nevertheless, for the reasons given above in relation to the first main issue, the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area. I conclude that the proposal would conflict with the development plan taken as a whole. There are no material considerations, including the Framework, that would outweigh that conflict. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.
Paragraph 22 · Source page 4
11 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘Change of use of land (Class E) and the erection of one two-storey dwelling house (Class C3)’.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are • Whether the site would be in a suitable location having regard to the development plan policies concerning new housing with reference to its effect on the character and appearance of its surroundings and the effect on public right of way MALM26; • The effect of the proposed development on the character or appearance of the Malmesbury Conservation Area and on the setting of nearby listed buildings; • The effect of the development on the Conygre Local Nature Reserve; • The effect of the proposed parking and access arrangements on highway safety on the B4040 [address]; • Whether the proposed development would provide satisfactory living conditions for future occupiers with regard to noise and odour from the adjoining restaurant; and • Whether the future occupiers of the proposed development would be at risk of flooding.
Paragraph 4 · Source pages 1, 2
Reasoning from the decision
The proposed dwelling would be separated from the restaurant by an area of parking. Whilst parking would take place along much of the site boundary, there are no bedroom or habitable room windows in the northern elevation of the proposed dwelling facing the car park and restaurant. In my judgement, this would mitigate the direct effect of possible noise from the use of the car park and restaurant on the living conditions of future occupiers of the dwelling. Recognising that the restaurant is in the control of the appellant, I have found no sound reason why, if the appeal is allowed, appropriately worded conditions could not be imposed to secure a noise assessment and any attenuation measures which may be required.
Paragraph 39 · Source page 6
2 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the erection of a first-floor rear extension, pitched roof to ground floor rear, and new rooflight.
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 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The survey concluded that the proposed extension would not adversely affect the adjoining property at No 3 in terms of daylight or sunlight to internal habitable rooms or to private amenity space. I have no reason to disagree with the survey’s methodology or findings. However, the first-floor extension would run along the shared boundary, projecting beyond the rear elevation of No 3 by almost 3.5m. In my judgement it would impose itself at unacceptably close quarters upon the outlook from the neighbour’s nearest first-floor bedroom window, and from their outdoor amenity space immediately to the rear of the dwelling, as a towering and overbearing presence that would be both visually dominant and obtrusive. By so doing, it would introduce a form of development which the WDG specifically seeks to avoid and one which would be harmful to the living conditions at No 3.
Paragraph 6 · Source pages 1, 2
6 May 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
up to 40 new residential dwellings, with all matters reserved, save for access.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in the appeal are: • whether the proposal would deliver the necessary affordable housing and other infrastructure requirements; • the effects of the proposal on the Bath and Bradford on Avon Bats Special area of Conservation (SAC); • the effects of the proposal on the ecological interests of the site and whether measures would adequately secure [name] (BNG); • whether adequate living conditions would be created for future occupiers, with particular regard to noise; • the effects of the proposal on any potential archaeological interests; • the effects of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; and • whether the site would be at risk of flooding and if so, whether the development would be safe over its lifetime.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Therefore, in the absence of cogent evidence to the contrary, I can only conclude that the development would fail to provide adequate living conditions for future occupiers, with particular regard to noise, contrary to core policy 57 of the [name], which seeks to ensure that appropriate levels of amenity are achievable within the development itself, including the consideration of privacy, overshadowing; vibration; and pollution, such as light intrusion and noise.
Paragraph 42 · Source page 9