Skip to main content
Official casework recordAllowedCurrent release

Appeal 3300407

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 works

One-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

described as “proposed detached private garage & formation of new vehicular access, drive & dropped kerb”.

  1. Section 02

    Decision

    The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for proposed detached private garage & formation of new vehicular access, drive & dropped kerb at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 22/00260/HOU, dated 21 January 2022, subject to the following conditions

    The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

    The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 21/1050-01; 21/1050-02; 21/1050- 03A; 21/1050-04A.

    The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

  2. Section 03

    Main Issue

    The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the appeal property and the surrounding area.

  3. Section 04

    Reasons

    The area surrounding the appeal site is characterised predominantly by residential properties of traditional design and detailing. The built form in the area is mixed with front gardens along [site address] having structures within the front gardens including greenhouses, sheds and garages. It is this mixed built form that contributes to the character of the area.

    The proposed garage would sit forward of the principal elevation of the appeal property. Given its positioning and setting, the proposal would not be out of keeping with the surrounding built form which includes neighbouring garages and other structures that are set forward of the main properties. The proposal would not be an incongruous addition and would blend in well with the existing built environment.

    The proposal includes the removal of part of the stone boundary wall therefore the proposed garage would be highly visible. However, the garage, including the proposed door, would be sensitive in design, materials and scale, and would not appear as a dominating feature that would detract from the appearance of the street scene or the appeal property.

    The City of Bradford Householder Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) states that garages are not normally acceptable to the front of a house. Therefore, there are occasions when garages can be considered acceptable to the front of the house. Due to the proposals design, scale, position and setting within the existing built form, it would not be an awkward or disproportionate structure that detracts from the character and appearance of the appeal property or surrounding area.

    Accordingly, the proposal would not be a discordant structure and would not have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the appeal property and surrounding area. The proposal would be in accordance with Policies DS1 and DS3 of the City of Bradford Core Strategy Development Plan Document 2017 which seeks development proposals to contribute to achieving good design and high quality places, and be appropriate to their context in terms of layout, scale, density, details and materials. The proposal would also accord with the key aims of the SPD which includes seeking to ensure that proposals are well designed and compliment the character of the original property and the wider area.

  4. Section 05

    Conditions

    Conditions relating to timeliness and the identification of plans are necessary in the interests of proper planning and to provide certainty. In the interests of character and appearance a condition is necessary in relation to materials.

  5. Section 06

    Conclusion

    The proposal would not conflict with the development plan and there are no other considerations, including the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework, which outweigh this finding.

    For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.

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
    14 July 2022Matches the official casework database
    Extracted site visit dates
    7 July 2022 (page 1)

Reference and authority

Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.

Case reference
3300407
Application reference
22/00260/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
32 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
Allowed
Decision category
Allowed
Received date
5 June 2022
Valid date
7 June 2022
Start date
9 June 2022
Planning authority decision date
18 March 2022
Appeal decision date
14 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
17811
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