Appeal 3270347
Public case and site metadata stored from the official casework database, including fields that were empty in the source release.
A clearer next step
See how Inspectors approached issues like yours
Bring your planning decision into a private workspace. We separate the disputed points, then match them with source-located Inspector reasoning from similar appeals.
- See which issues the decision appears to turn on
- Compare the facts and open the full appeal records
One private comparison
How the refusal review worksOne-off service · No subscription
Similar appeals are evidence to inspect, not a prediction of your outcome.
Official decision document
The decision, section by section
5 sections
Read the development description and the Inspector’s text from the official decision PDF in source order. Source headings are retained where available. Personal and contact details are removed by an automated privacy filter; this is source material, not Rules for You analysis.
Section 01
Development description
Retrospective application for store to front of dwelling.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for Retrospective application for store to front of dwelling at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 20/06158/FU, dated 12 September 2020, subject to the following condition:
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with Dwg. No 1, Project 020010, dated Feb 2020.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the development on highway safety.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal concerns a single storey store built against the brick boundary wall of [site address] (No 1). The Council argues that the store has been built within the visibility splay that serves the [address] access and that the boundary wall that forms two of its outer walls has been realigned. At my visit I concluded that the boundary wall’s piers were about 1.8 metres tall and that the wall and the store do impede visibility from the [address] exit.
However, the evidence before me indicates that the wall predates the store construction and during the appeal I was supplied with a Certificate of Lawful Development in respect of the wall. As such even if the store was removed or reduced in size, the two outer walls would remain as an obstruction in the visibility splay.
[name] appreciate the Council’s concerns in such circumstances, it would seem perverse to dismiss the appeal, as the wall alignment is lawful. Moreover, there is nothing before me to indicate that the dismissal of the appeal would lead to the restoration of the original visibility splay.
I conclude that that the store is obstructing visibility leading to an adverse effect on highway safety. This would be contrary to Policy T2 of the [name] which requires development to not materially add to problems with highway safety, as well as guidance in Manual for Streets and the [address] [name].
Nonetheless, for the reasons set out above the appeal is allowed, and I have imposed a condition requiring adherence with the submitted drawing for certainty.
Section 05
Conclusion
The appeal is allowed.
Planning inspector and document dates
The official casework attribution is grouped under a one-way keyed hash and shown only by its local identifier. Decision-letter dates and page references are extracted by fixed first-page rules and checked against that authoritative record.
Appeal Decision
- Extracted inspector · page 1
- Inspector attribution ID 207No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 6 July 2021Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 29 June 2021 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3270347
- Application reference
- 20/06158/FU
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Leeds City Council
- Planning authority code
- E08000035
Casework details
The casework, procedure, development and linking details supplied by the official record.
- Casework type
- Householder (HAS)
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development type
- Householder developments
- Appeal type reason
- 1. Refused planning permission
- Appeal reason
- Refusal
- Type detail
- Planning Appeals - Full
- Jurisdiction
- Transferred
- Link status
- Not Linked
Site and development
Published appeal-site measurements and planning designations, without the withheld precise location fields.
- Site area
- Not recorded
- Floor space
- 315 m²
- Number of residences
- 0
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- No
- Affects setting of a listed building
- No
- Historic building grant made
- No
- Relates to a conservation area
- No
- Flooding is an issue
- No
- Site within an AONB
- No
- Site within an SSSI
- No
Decision and dates
The published outcome and every imported case date.
- Official decision
- Allowed
- Decision category
- Allowed
- Received date
- 5 March 2021
- Valid date
- 5 March 2021
- Start date
- 11 May 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 17 December 2020
- Appeal decision date
- 6 July 2021
Case administration
Published recovery, call-in, costs and enforcement information for this case.
- Redetermined
- No
- Bespoke
- No
- Date recovered
- Not recorded
- Date not recovered or derecovered
- Not recorded
- Call-in date
- Not recorded
- Costs applied for
- No
- Enforcement grounds count
- Not recorded
- Enforcement grounds
- Not recorded
Source and catalogue history
When this record appeared in the rolling official release and when the catalogue stored it.
- Source
- Planning Inspectorate casework database
- Source data system
- Horizon
- Dataset status
- Current release
- Catalogue record ID
- 289
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:25
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21