Appeal 3366211
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
5 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 Single storey rear extension to existing dwelling. First floor front extension over existing ground floor footprint. Rear extension and roof alteration to existing garage.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the development on trees.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal site lies within a predominantly residential area, comprising mainly large detached properties. The trees on the appeal site and surrounding area are protected by a Tree Preservation Order and contribute to the sylvan character and appearance of the area.
An Arboricultural Method Statement has been provided by the appellant to support the proposal. [name] has not been produced in accordance with relevant professional standards providing limited information relating to the trees on the site and the potential effect of the development on them.
The appellant confirms that the proposed garage and rear extension would accommodate a photovoltaic system in order to provide low carbon, renewable energy generation, this is not detailed on the plans however does not outweigh the potential harm to the trees.
I find that the appellant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed development would not harm protected trees. There is conflict with Policy EN5 of the Local Plan for Bradford District, Core Strategy Development Plan Document (2017), which seeks amongst other things seeks to protect and enhance trees and woodland cover.
Section 05
Conclusion
For the above reasons I conclude that this 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 126No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 12 August 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 8 July 2025 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3366211
- Application reference
- 24/04123/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
- 1
- 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
- 21 May 2025
- Valid date
- 21 May 2025
- Start date
- 23 May 2025
- Planning authority decision date
- 27 February 2025
- Appeal decision date
- 12 August 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
- 74601
- 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