Appeal 3291949
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
8 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 retrospective front bay window with front entrance cladding.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
[name]
The application was submitted retrospectively and I have considered the appeal on that basis.
Section 04
[name]
The main issues are the effect of the development on i) the character and appearance of the host property and surrounding area; and ii) the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] with particular regard to privacy.
Section 05
Character and appearance
The houses along this part of [address] comprise regular terraced blocks set perpendicular to the road. They are distinctive for their uniform design, materials and unaltered frontages.
As the only example of a forward extension among these houses, the appeal development is highly conspicuous and markedly out of keeping with the established character. The external cladding treatment adds further to the incongruity of the development, particularly as such materials are otherwise only found at first floor level.
Thus, despite its relatively modest projection, I find that the development has a pronounced and entirely unsatisfactory effect upon the character and appearance of the appeal property and its surroundings. This is contrary to Policies DS1 and DS3 of the Bradford Core Strategy Development Plan Document (2017) (the CS), which among other things, require that development is well designed and should make a positive contribution to the streetscape and the character of the area in which it is situated. It is also contrary to the Council’s Householder Supplementary Planning Document (2012) (the SPD), which advises against front extensions where the uniform appearance of an area or street is a distinctive characteristic.
Section 06
Living conditions
The development is constructed along the boundary with No 88 and contains a clear glazed window in the side elevation. It is very likely that this window allows views into the front living room window of No 88, with a resultant loss of privacy for those neighbouring occupiers. I noted the use of blinds in the window, but this could not always be guaranteed.
I therefore find that the development has a harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] through loss of privacy. This is contrary to Policy DS5 of the CS, and the SPD, insofar as they seek to protect the living conditions of neighbouring residents.
Section 07
Other Matters
In reasoning the above, I have taken into account the letter of support from a local Councillor and the absence of any objection from the neighbours. However, these are not considerations which justify the harmful effects of the development, so do not lead me to a different conclusion.
Section 08
Conclusion
Given the above, the proposal would not accord with the development plan taken as a whole and there are no considerations that outweigh this finding. Accordingly, the appeal is 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
- 10 March 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 8 March 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3291949
- Application reference
- 21/05709/HOU
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council
- Planning authority code
- E08000032
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
- 5 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
- 2 February 2022
- Valid date
- 2 February 2022
- Start date
- 8 February 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 6 January 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 10 March 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
- 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
- 12101
- 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