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