Appeal 3316135
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
front extension to the lounge.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
[name]
I note that a revised proposal for a front extension was sent to the Council for pre application advice. This revised scheme is not before me, and I have not therefore had regard to it in determining this appeal.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of [site address] and the surrounding area.
Section 05
Reasons
The host dwelling is a detached bungalow of a similar design to No 13 and [address]. The street has a mix of dwelling types and styles, with mainly bungalows on the same side of the street and two storey dwellings opposite. The bungalow is set back from the road behind a low wall and landscaped area and is at a higher level than the road.
Whilst the proposed extension would fill in a recessed area to the front of the dwelling and would not protrude further forward than the existing dwelling, the resultant form of the gable roof would not reflect the slope of the existing roof. The apex of the extended roof would not be central to the building, giving an asymmetrical appearance to the building. This would unbalance the dwelling and have a discordant and jarring appearance in the streetscene reducing the contribution the dwelling makes to the character of the area.
My attention has been drawn to a front extension to a property in the vicinity of the appeal site. This is a single storey extension to the front of a two storey dwelling so is not comparable to the proposal before me. The photograph of the bungalow shows a property of a different design to the appeal proposal. In any event, I have determined this appeal on the site-specific circumstances of this case.
For the above reasons, I conclude that the appeal proposal would harm the character and appearance of [site address] and the surrounding area and conflict with Policy P10 of the Leeds City Council Core Strategy (2019) and Policies GP5 and BD6 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan Review (2006) which together, amongst other matters, seek to ensure that development is appropriate to its context and respects the character and quality of the surrounding area. It would also conflict with Policy HDG1 of the Householder Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2012) which states that additions should respect the character and appearance of the locality particularly the roof form and roof line. It would also be at odds with the overarching design aims of the National Planning Policy Framework.
Section 06
Conclusion
The proposed development conflicts with the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations, that outweigh this conflict. I therefore conclude 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 20592No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 6 July 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 3 May 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3316135
- Application reference
- 22/07133/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
- 11 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
- 6 February 2023
- Valid date
- 9 February 2023
- Start date
- 15 February 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 21 December 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 6 July 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
- 35196
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:27
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21