Appeal 3298204
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
single storey front extension to form porch with tiled roof to existing bay window.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 04
Reasons
No [site address] is a semi-detached, white painted two storey house. It is located within a row of detached and semi-detached housing which is set both below and well back from the road. The area is characterised by traditional stone boundary walls with hedges, vegetation and trees creating a verdant setting.
The proposed single storey porch extension, plus pitched roof to the existing bay window, would follow a pattern of extending properties on the front elevation along this stretch of Green Road. However, these have been built in line with the gable wall of the house and are generally of a simple form with a pitched roof. In contrast, the appeal proposal would extend forward of the front of the house and wrap around the gable elevation. The combination of both a single pitched and hipped roof form, and the size and glazing pattern of the proposed window, would be more obtrusive and dominate the front elevation of the property. This would be compounded by the shared driveway between no 89 and no [address] which provides open views into the site from Green Road to the front.
The proposed development would therefore unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the area. It would be contrary to policies P10 and P12 of the [name], saved UDP policies GP5 and BD6 and policy HDG1 of the [name] where they state that new development should respect the character of the building and the townscape. It would also fail to accord with paragraph 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework where development should add to the overall quality of the area and be sympathetic to local character.
Section 05
Conclusion
The proposed development conflicts with the development plan when considered as a whole and there are no material considerations, either individually or in combination, that outweighs the identified harm and associated development plan conflict.
For the reasons given above, I consider 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 3763No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 1 July 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 7 June 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3298204
- Application reference
- 22/01394/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
- 3 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
- 4 May 2022
- Valid date
- 4 May 2022
- Start date
- 17 May 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 27 April 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 1 July 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
- 17223
- 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