Appeal 3279749
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
6 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 dormer window to rear and solar panels to front and side; new chimney to side.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Preliminary Matters
I have used the description of development that is common to the appeal form and Council’s decision notice as it is more accurate than the description on the application form.
As it is clear that the application has been submitted retrospectively, I have considered the appeal on that basis.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area.
Section 05
Reasons
From the information before me it appears that the Council has previously granted planning permission for a rear dormer window. However, the Council states that what has subsequently been constructed is wider, higher and has a different roof design. As such, I have considered the appeal scheme on its own individual merits.
The constructed dormer is a wide and bulky structure with an overall height which exceeds the ridge line of the main roof, thereby resulting in a top-heavy addition. Its form does not reflect the proportions and detailing of the existing building. The awkward upward slope of the dormer and large double doors at attic level further exacerbates the incongruousness of the development. These harmful effects are not mitigated by its cladding in similar materials to the roof.
The upper part of the dormer is visible from The Oval. From the rear it is highly visible from a footpath behind the property, as well as from [name] and [name]. In all these views, the dormer appears as a visually discordant element in an area where large, bulky dormers are not a characteristic feature.
The appellant claims that the changes are due to Building Regulation requirements and that significant improvements have been made to the insulation of the property. I have also noted the personal family circumstances of the appellant. However, these are not considerations which justify the harmful effects of the development. Furthermore, the height of other buildings in the area has no bearing on my assessment of the individual merits of the proposed dormer.
I therefore conclude that the development unacceptably harms the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. Thus, it conflicts with Policy P10 of the Leeds City Council Core Strategy (as amended by the [name] 2019), saved Policies GP5 and BD6 of the Leeds City Council Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006), and policy HDG1 of the Council’s adopted Supplementary Planning Document ‘[name] 2012’. Amongst other things, these require development, including extensions, to be well designed, and to respect the scale, form and features of the original building and the character of its surroundings.
Section 06
Conclusion
The proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations that outweigh this conflict. Therefore, for the reasons outlined above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.
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 597No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 22 September 2021Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 14 September 2021 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3279749
- Application reference
- 21/00156/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
- 28 m²
- Number of residences
- 0
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- No
- Affects setting of a listed building
- Not recorded
- Historic building grant made
- Not recorded
- Relates to a conservation area
- Not recorded
- Flooding is an issue
- Not recorded
- Site within an AONB
- Not recorded
- Site within an SSSI
- Not recorded
Decision and dates
The published outcome and every imported case date.
- Official decision
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 27 July 2021
- Valid date
- 27 July 2021
- Start date
- 2 August 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 17 May 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 22 September 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
- Not recorded
- 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
- 3618
- 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