Appeal 3365213
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
4 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 single storey side extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey side extension at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, reference 25/00074/FU, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:
The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: PP-13671623v1, 24127-3 and 24127-2.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 04
Reasons
The proposal would result in a side extension, with a flat roof, that would link into the existing rear addition. The council have not raised a concern with regard to the design, only with regard to the impact on the spatial characteristics of this corner plot and the properties behind on [address]. Despite this being a relatively prominent corner position, I accept the council’s view with regard to the design as the flat roof of the extension would ensure that it would have very little prominence within the street scene when viewed from [address] as it would be largely screened by the hedge. When viewed from [address], it would be viewed in association with the existing large rear extension and would generally match its form.
With regard to the spatial characteristics of this immediate area, there is actually little perceived unity with regard to this property and the other nearby properties. This dwelling and its attached neighbour sit squarely facing the main road whilst the corner properties opposite are set at an angle. The leisure centre sits further back from the road and is of an entirely different design, as are the commercial buildings Appeal Decision: APP/N4720/D/25/3365213 beyond. Whilst there is some uniformity with regard to the positions of properties within [address], as the road curves away to the north, this uniformity is not apparent from the main road. The appeal property, although of a similar design, is viewed as being clearly separate from those properties and does not add to their character or setting. The spatial arrangements of the appeal property and the first property in [address] are also significantly different. As there is no clearly apparent perceived unity in layout, the council’s concern with regard to changes to the side of the appeal property are overstated.
Given the above, the proposal would sit relatively unobtrusively to the side of this dwelling. Its low height would ensure that it would have little wider prominence and in any event, extending to the side of this property would not materially alter the character of the area as there is no existing perceived unity in the layout of buildings in the vicinity. In these circumstances, there would be no conflict with the expectations of policies P10 or P12 of the [name] (as amended by the [name] 2019); or policy GP5 of the Unitary Development Plan Review (2006).
Reference is made to the council’s Supplementary Planning Document: [name] 2012 and particularly the design requirements of policy HDG1. The guidance supports side extensions generally. It advises that care should be taken with corner plots when the extension would be visible from two streets as the design should be suitable in relation to both. It also makes reference to the need to take account of the building line of the side street. As already identified, the building line of the side street is not critical in these circumstances given the curved nature of the road and the limited contribution the appeal property makes to the character of the properties to the rear. The proposal does not therefore conflict with the design expectations of the guidance or policy HDG1. It similarly does not conflict with the design aspirations of the National Planning Policy Framework.
In conclusion, the proposal would not detract from the character or appearance of the area. As there are no other matters that weigh significantly against the proposal, I allow the appeal.
I have imposed conditions relating to the commencement of development and the details of the approved plans for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. The plans set out that the details of the materials to be used would match, so no further conditions are required.
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 341No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 7 July 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 24 June 2025 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3365213
- Application reference
- 25/00074/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
- 371 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
- 6 May 2025
- Valid date
- 6 May 2025
- Start date
- 8 May 2025
- Planning authority decision date
- 19 February 2025
- Appeal decision date
- 7 July 2025
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
- No
- 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
- 72510
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:28
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21