Appeal 3291196
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
described as “extension above existing garage and front brought level with porch”.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposed extension above existing garage on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] with regards to outlook.
Section 04
Reasons
The proposed extension would introduce a large expanse of built development within close proximity to windows in the rear elevation of [address] (No 3). The proposed ridge height would not be as high as the ridge height of the existing property, however, the extension would be set closer to No 3 than the two storey element of the existing appeal property. Due to the scale, height and positioning of the proposal, it would be a dominant structure that would appear overbearing when viewed from the rear windows and garden area of No 3 and subsequently have a detrimental effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 3.
I have had regard to the appellants statement of case, including photos of the appeal property and other extensions in the area. Insufficient information has been provided on these other extensions and I do not consider that they are directly comparable to the appeal scheme, particularly with regards to scale and relationship with neighbouring properties. In any event, I have determined this appeal on its own merits.
Accordingly, the proposal would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 3 in respect of outlook. The proposal would be contrary to P10 of the Leeds Local Plan Core Strategy, Policies GP5 and BD5 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan and Policy HDG2 of the [name] 2012 which seeks development to protect the amenity of neighbours.
The appellant indicates that the occupiers of No 3 have no objections to the proposal and that there has been no consultation from Council Planning Officers. These matters however do not alter my findings above and the harm to existing and future occupiers of No 3.
Section 05
Conclusion
The proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations, including the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework, which outweigh this finding.
Therefore, for the reasons given above, 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 173No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 11 April 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 22 March 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3291196
- Application reference
- 21/09664/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
- 1,957 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
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 21 January 2022
- Valid date
- 21 January 2022
- Start date
- 25 January 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 7 January 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 11 April 2022
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
- 13810
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:26
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21