Appeal 3306538
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
construction of single storey side extension (retrospective) and wall height increase.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
[name]
Of the proposed works, the side extension is in situ. I am therefore dealing with the appeal, in part, retrospectively.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is the effects of the development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
Section 05
Reasons
[address] is a residential street characterised by predominantly semi-detached properties. The appeal property differs from the predominant house type and is a large, detached dwelling which both in its size, materials and appearance differ from the others in the street.
The property has been extended in the past but maintains a general cohesiveness to its form and appearance. Contemporary design, can, in some circumstances, be an appropriate approach to an extension or alteration of a building. However, in this case, the development overtly clashes and contrasts with the vernacular style of the existing house. It extends a significant length from the property and although single storey, its substantial length projecting to the side, is at odds with the host dwelling’s plan form. This clash is exacerbated by the materials, which draw the eye in the street scene despite the extension being set back significantly from the front façade.
The existing wall is prominent and distinct from the front boundary treatments of others in the street, which are characterised by lower walls, high fencing, planting, or a combination. The straight alignment and length of the wall results in a prominent feature adjacent to the footway. The increase in height, albeit by a small amount, would result in an overly dominant feature in this part of the street.
The location of the property at the end of [address] assists in moderating the effects in the wider street scene. Nonetheless, the development is clearly visible from the front along the street and where the access to the footpath is achieved. This is not sufficient therefore to overcome my concerns.
I therefore conclude that the development has a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The development therefore conflicts with the requirements of Policies DS1 and DS3 of the Council’s Core Strategy Development Plan Document (2017) and its Householder Supplementary Planning Document taken together. These stipulate, amongst other things, that development proposals should create a strong sense of place and be appropriate to their context in terms of layout, scale, density, details and materials.
The increase in wall height would improve the privacy of the garden. However, it has not been demonstrated that this is the only way to achieve privacy, moderating the weight I give to this benefit.
For the reasons given above, the development conflicts with the development plan and there are no material considerations that outweigh this conflict. 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 1160No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 23 January 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 12 January 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3306538
- Application reference
- 22/02677/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
- Not recorded
- Number of residences
- 0
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- Not recorded
- 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
- 7 September 2022
- Valid date
- 7 September 2022
- Start date
- 21 September 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 12 August 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 23 January 2023
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
- 26905
- 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