Worthing Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over neighbour living conditions in Worthing?
Compare the selected examples with the points raised in 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
- 12 of 23
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 2
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 10
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 12
- of 12 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: Worthing LPA (50.823816, −0.395338). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Worthing Borough Council appeal findings
Worthing side windows, extension bulk and light
The selected examples give more weight to allowed appeals than the matched local set, and the allowed deck extract gives only a conclusion.
Counted against appeals
Side windows, bulk and loss of light
Clear side-window conditions remained
The inspector kept disputed conditions on the clear-glazed side window to safeguard No. 18’s living conditions.
Overbearing bulk and mass
The side infill extension’s bulk and mass were found overbearing, harming neighbours’ living conditions regardless of garden orientation.
Outlook and light were harmed
The inspector concluded the proposal would materially harm No. 70’s living conditions through loss of outlook and light.
Helped or needed
Allowed raised-deck conclusion
No significant deck harm
For the raised rear deck, the inspector concluded there would be no significant harm to neighbours’ living conditions.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify a clear side window or privacy condition?
- Does it say your extension’s bulk or mass would feel overbearing?
- Does it identify lost outlook or light for a named neighbour?
Some dismissed examples also considered other issues, so this review uses only their neighbour-living conclusions. 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 2024 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
raised deck to rear with external steps and balustrade.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Accordingly, I find that the appeal proposal would not lead to any significant harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers and would comply with part ‘a) viii’ to policy DM5 of the WLP, the guidance within the SPG and paragraph 130 f) of the Framework.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
26 March 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a side single storey extension to east elevation and enlarged entrance porch to south elevation without complying with conditions attached to planning permission Ref. AWDM/1726/20, dated 24 December 2020.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the clear glazed side window in the recently built side extension at No. [site address] on the living conditions for the occupiers of No. 18, with particular reference to overlooking and privacy. (The Council has no objection to the fitting of the roof lantern as referred to in the details of the development).
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I have taken account of the special reasons why the clear glazing is important to the appellant’s family and have sympathy with the submissions made. Nonetheless, for the reasons explained I conclude on balance that the disputed conditions on planning permission Ref. AWDM/1726/20, dated 24 December 2020 should remain. This is to safeguard the living conditions for the occupiers of No. 18 and to ensure compliance with Policy DM5viii) of the Worthing Local Plan 2020-2036 adopted 2023; the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘Extending or Altering your Home’, and paragraph 135f) of Government policy in the National Planning Policy Framework, revised in December 2024.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
3 March 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
for a single-storey side infill extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Hence, irrespective of the orientation of the rear gardens on this section of [site address] , the bulk and mass of the proposed development would be overbearing and harm the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
21 February 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
loft conversion including hip to gable roof extension and 2 storey rear extension with internal alterations and rooflights to front elevation.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in this appeal are: a) the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the existing property and on the local area, including the setting of the South Downs National Park, and b) The effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the neighbours at No 70, with particular regard to outlook, overlooking and loss of privacy and loss of light.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore conclude that the proposed development would materially harm the living conditions of the neighbours at No 70, with particular regard to loss of outlook and loss of light. This would conflict with Policy DM5 of the Worthing Local Plan, the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance Extending or altering your home and the Framework, and in particular paragraph 135 f), all of which, amongst other matters, seek a high quality of design which respects the amenities of existing and future occupants.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 3
12 May 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
to demolish side garage and living/conservatory above including rear conservatory. New two storey side extension with new rear ground floor extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in this appeal: a) The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the existing property and of the local area, and b) The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of surrounding neighbours, with particular regard to outlook, overlooking and loss of privacy.
Paragraph 5 · Source pages 1, 2
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore conclude that the proposed extensions and alterations would materially harm the living conditions of the neighbours in [address]. This would conflict with Policy DM5 of the Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework and in particular paragraph 130, all of which amongst other matters, seek a high quality of design which respects the amenities of existing and future occupiers.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 3