Appeal 3293129
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
front dormer windows.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The Council’s Officer report and reason for refusal do not include any detailed assessment of the impact of the proposed front dormer windows, due to stated discrepancies in the plans that were provided with the planning application. However, their impact on character and appearance is the substantive matter that the Council has identified.
Therefore, the main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal site is a dwelling which forms part of a continuous row of terraced properties that front onto [address]. The roofscape of these dwellings facing the public highway is uninterrupted by the presence of any existing dormer windows.
The Council’s Householder Supplementary Planning Document 2012 (SPD) sets out that the addition of new dormer windows to the front elevations of individually designed buildings will be considered on their own merits. The SPD sets out further guidance, including on size and positioning and it states that two smaller pitched roof dormer windows are often preferred to one large window, if they can be aligned with the windows below.
The appeal proposal is for two larger flat roofed dormer windows which, with the additional clarification provided during the appeal, would appear to meet with some of the guidance of the SPD. This includes their proposed inset into the roof from both the eaves and the ridge, and their distance from the common boundaries of the appeal property. However, each proposed dormer window would have a width of 2.5 metres and would be flat roofed, which would not accord with the example illustrated in the SPD, where two dormers are proposed.
As a result of their widths, the proposed dormers would collectively cover much of the roof, dominating the roof of both the appeal dwelling itself and the continuous roof plane of the terraced dwellings along this side of [address]. This impact would be accentuated by the fact that there are no other front dormer windows present in the immediate street scene. The proposal would, due to these factors, cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the area.
For these reasons, I conclude that the proposal would fail to accord with Policies DS1 and DS3 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document 2017 (CS), where they seek to protect character and appearance. There would also be a conflict with the overarching aims of the SPD, where it seeks to promote good design. Policy EN3 of the CS refers to the historic environment and is therefore, based on the information I have before me, not relevant to an assessment of the appeal proposal.
Section 05
Conclusion
For the reasons given 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 183No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 30 March 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
- 3293129
- Application reference
- 21/05380/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
- 36 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
- 17 February 2022
- Valid date
- 18 February 2022
- Start date
- 24 February 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 12 January 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 30 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
- 13217
- 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