Appeal 3300020
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
first floor side extension above existing ground floor side extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal site is a semi-detached property in a residential area. On the approach along [address], the pattern of development is generally uniform. Clear spacings in-between the pairs of semi-detached properties are created by long driveways. While there are varying property types the area has an inherently open character.
There is an existing ground floor side extension, which is set back a short distance from the primary elevation. It fills the open space between the main property and the shared boundary almost entirely. The addition of a first floor extension would make the built form unduly dominant.
I note that the neighbouring property at [address] has a two storey side extension. However, this is set further back from the primary elevation than the proposal before me, and there remains a clear gap to the side due to a remaining driveway. While the proposal would, to a degree, balance the pair of semi-detached properties, unlike no 48, the space between no 50 and its neighbour would be reduced and would not relate positively to the open character of the area.
I have also had regard to the other examples of existing side extensions nearby. From my site visit I found these to have a different built form and spacing around the properties to the proposal before me. As such, these side extensions have not undermined the character and appearance of the area in the way that the proposal would.
Consequently, for the reasons given, this proposal would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. This is in conflict with saved Policy GP5 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006), and Policy P10 of the [name] (as amended by the [name] selective Review 2019) which, amongst other things, seeks new development that contributes to place making and is of a size, scale and form that is appropriate to its context.
Section 05
Other Matters
I have given careful consideration to the appellant’s need to extend their property to create extra space for their growing family. However, these are largely personal circumstances and, therefore, of limited weight.
Section 06
Conclusion
My above findings bring the proposals into conflict with the development plan, read as a whole. There are no material considerations that have been shown to have sufficient weight to warrant a decision otherwise than in accordance with it. Therefore, 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 3895No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 28 July 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 12 July 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3300020
- Application reference
- 22/00617/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
- 6 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
- 28 May 2022
- Valid date
- 28 May 2022
- Start date
- 7 June 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 25 April 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 28 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
- 18521
- 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