Appeal 3316530
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 ‘construction of dormer window to front (hip roof to gable permitted development)’.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host building and street scene.
Section 04
Reasons
[address] is characterised by semi-detached and terraced houses of traditional style and materials. The appeal property is part of a group of semi-detached dwellings featuring distinctive dual pitched gables at the front. The gables are an important architectural component of the dwellings and add positively to their unity as a group.
The proposal includes a hip-to-gable roof alteration at the side and a front dormer window. The hip-to-gable alteration would mirror that already carried out to No 120, thereby restoring some balance to this semi-detached pair. Nonetheless, the removal of the front gable and erection of a large, prominent, flat-roof dormer on just one of the dwellings would severely disrupt the architectural composition and symmetry of the front elevations. This would significantly harm the character and appearance of the dwellings as a semi-detached pair, despite the benefit of the hip-to-gable alteration.
While there is a very similar example at No 177, I am advised that it significantly pre-dates the current development plan and guidance against which I must assess this appeal. It does not therefore set any precedent for similar development. If anything, it only serves to demonstrate the harm that would be caused by the proposal.
I have also taken into account that dormers are not an uncommon feature in the street scene. However, the semi-detached houses with dormers are a different house type and the dormers come as a pair. They also tend to be smaller in scale and mostly with a pitched roof design that respects the traditional character of the buildings on which they sit. Other flat roof examples are not positive features and should not be replicated.
The appellant emphasises that the dormer has been designed to comply with the Council’s Householder Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). Even so, I am mindful that the SPD is guidance, not policy, and its strict application will not be appropriate in all circumstances.
Overall, I find that the proposal would not be a well-designed and sympathetic addition to the host building and street scene. As such, there is conflict with Policies DS1 and DS3 of Bradford’s Core Strategy Development Plan Document (2017), which among other things, require that development is well designed and should make a positive contribution to the streetscape and the character of the area in which it is situated.
Section 05
Other Matters
Any benefits the proposal may bring in terms of improved internal living accommodation would not justify or outweigh the harm that would be caused and the resultant conflict that arises with the development plan as a whole.
Section 06
Conclusion
For the reasons given above, I 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 597No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 26 June 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 20 June 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3316530
- Application reference
- 22/04230/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
- 12 February 2023
- Valid date
- 12 February 2023
- Start date
- 15 February 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 25 November 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 26 June 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
- 34606
- 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