These examples explain decisions on their own evidence. They are not binding precedent, a representative sample or evidence that neighbour objections caused an outcome. Both predate the August 2026 framework.
Southampton Row, Camden — extended hours refused
APP/X5210/W/25/3373275; 19 December 2025; application 2025/2209/P. The hours variation was dismissed. The inspector distinguished accepted internal/plant evidence from delivery and collection disturbance. Reliance on third-party courier behaviour made the proposed management arrangements insufficiently enforceable. The premises licence did not settle the planning decision. The lesson is to identify the particular activity and its control, not to treat all noise sources alike.
Dean Street, Westminster — controls accepted
APP/X5990/W/24/3350517; 29 May 2025; application 23/02396/FULL. Permission was allowed with conditions. For the proposed terrace, assessment, enclosure and operational restrictions supported an acceptable noise relationship. Further plant information was controlled through a condition. This does not mean any missing acoustic information can be postponed: the inspector accepted a particular combination of evidence, setting and controls.
How to use the contrast
Ask what noise was actually assessed, what the proposed restriction would control and why the decision maker accepted or rejected it. Neither case supplies a decibel standard for your street. Read the original decisions through the source links, and use the noise guide to organise the facts of your own application.