Appeal 3335212
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
7 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
a hip to gable loft extension; dormer window to rear with Juliet balcony; new second floor window to side and new roof light to front.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for hip to gable loft extension; dormer window to rear with Juliet balcony; new second floor window to side and new roof light to front, at [site address] , Leeds [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 23/05272/FU, dated 29 August 2023, 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: Location plan; J40-64 003.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal site is one half of a pair of two-storey, semi-detached houses situated in an established residential area containing a mix of house types. Many of the houses have been previously extended, including at roof level.
A hip to gable alteration can often unbalance a pair of semi-detached houses. However, in this case the adjoining property, No 20, has already carried out a very similar roof alteration. The proposal would therefore restore the symmetry and balance in this semi-detached pair, leading to an improvement compared to the current situation.
I do agree with the Council that the rear dormer would be a bulky, box-like structure that would dominate the rear roof slope. Nevertheless, it would be confined to the rear where the only public views would be glimpsed and in a context of many other similar rear dormers, including at No 20. I am also mindful of the permitted development options that are available to the property, as demonstrated in the appellant’s evidence. As such, whilst there is some conflict with the Council’s Householder Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2012) in relation to the size of the dormer, the effect on the street scene and surrounding area would be minimal.
I am therefore satisfied that the development could be accommodated at the site without causing harm to the character and appearance of the area. Thus, the proposal complies with the general design requirements of Policies P10 and P12 of the Leeds City Council Core Strategy (amended 2019); [name] BD6 and GP5 of the Leeds City Council Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006); and the National Planning Policy Framework.
Section 05
Other Matters
The Council did not identify any harm to the significance of a Scheduled Ancient Monument located on [address] Side. I see no reason to disagree, and I am satisfied that its setting would be preserved.
Section 06
Conditions
As suggested in the Council’s appeal questionnaire, I have imposed the standard time limit and approved plans conditions for certainty. However, a condition relating to external materials is not necessary as these are described on the approved plans.
Section 07
Conclusion
For the reasons given, I conclude that the appeal should succeed.
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
- 23 February 2024Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 20 February 2024 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3335212
- Application reference
- 23/05272/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
- 34 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
- 15 December 2023
- Valid date
- 15 December 2023
- Start date
- 18 December 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 30 October 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 23 February 2024
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
- 47063
- 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