Appeal 3324518
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
8 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 a ‘retrospective application for a garden wall’
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Appeal Procedure
The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.
Section 04
Preliminary Matters
The name of the applicant on the application form is incomplete and should read as set out above. Consent has been received from the named applicant for the appeal to proceed in their name. I was also able to confirm on my site visit that the development subject of the appeal has been carried out. I have proceeded on this basis.
Section 05
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 06
Reasons for the Recommendation
[address] is a residential cul-de-sac characterised by low boundary walls, low hedging or open front gardens all of which contribute positively to a pleasant open character. Given the height and length of the brick wall, it appears stark and incongruous, leading to a much stronger sense of enclosure which, as a result, has unacceptably eroded the quality of the areas openness. The location of the wall at the turning head of the cul-de-sac amplifies its prominence in wider views, particularly when approaching [address] from the end of the cul-de-sac.
Taller boundary walls and fencing are a consistent feature within the [address] street scene. However, [address] is a wide main road from which [address], along with several other residential cul-de-sacs are accessed. Where the taller boundary treatments are present, properties have no active street frontage giving rise to a visual distinction between [address] and [address]. As such the examples submitted by the appellant are not directly comparable to the appeal site and would not justify the appeal scheme.
The boundary wall, for the reason set out, harms the character and appearance of the area and therefore conflicts with Policy P10 of the [name] (as amended 2019) and saved Policy N25 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan (2006) which collectively seek to ensure development and boundaries respect the character of the area. I have also had regard to the ‘Householder Design Guide’ Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) which also seeks to ensure proposals respect local character.
Section 07
Conclusion and Recommendation
The appeal scheme conflicts with the development plan and there are no material considerations worthy of sufficient weight that would indicate a decision other than in accordance therewith. I therefore recommend the appeal be dismissed.
Section 08
Inspector’s Decision
I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s recommendation and on that basis 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 1895No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 12 October 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 22 August 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3324518
- Application reference
- 22/06266/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
- 405 hectares
- Floor space
- 0 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
- 21 June 2023
- Valid date
- 26 June 2023
- Start date
- 29 June 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 26 April 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 12 October 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
- 40178
- 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