Skip to main content
Official casework recordAllowedCurrent release

Appeal 3368119

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 works

One-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

a single storey side extension.

  1. 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 25/00937/FU, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following

  2. Section 03

    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: Block Plan and Drawing 02.

  3. Section 04

    Main Issue

    The main issue is the effect on the character and appearance of the area.

  4. Section 05

    Reasons

    The existing dwelling has already been significantly extended. It has a wide plot and sits comfortable in this corner position alongside its attached neighbour. Whilst the current front extension is prominent due to its depth, the two storey side extension follows the form of the original property design. The proposal would result in a single storey side extension of limited width, set back to the side. It would sit comfortably within the wide frontage of the property. Although extending close to the side boundary towards the rear, this would not be particularly evident from the street. Although the hipped rood would not match in terms of its pitch, it would nevertheless sit relatively unobtrusively alongside the existing extended dwelling. Given its scale and position, it would appear as a subservient and relatively modest new addition. As the property is set back from the road and it has a relatively high roadside boundary, it would have only a very limited impact on the wider area.

    The council consider that cumulatively, along with the existing two storey and single storey side and front extensions, it would result in an unduly large mass of Appeal Decision: APP/N4720/D/25/3368119 extensions to the side of the original dwelling. Whilst the existing extensions do dominate the original form of the dwelling, this single storey side element would not result in a significant change to the development that has already been accepted. Its design and form would be appropriate in this particular context. It would not therefore result in harm to the character or appearance of the existing dwelling, its neighbour or to the wider area.

    Given the above, the proposal would not be contrary to the design requirements of policy P10 of the [name] (as amended by the [name] 2019) or policy BD6 of the Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006). Policy HDG1 of the Householder Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document 2012 requires that all extensions respect the scale, form, proportions, character and appearance of the main dwelling and the locality, with particular attention being paid to the roof form and roof line. As the proposal has to be considered in the light of the previously accepted extensions, this further limited addition would not be at odds with the overall design objectives.

    As the proposed extension would have a satisfactory appearance and 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. Drawing 02 sets out that the materials to be used would match the existing, so a condition in this regard would be unnecessary.

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
    21 August 2025Matches the official casework database
    Extracted site visit dates
    11 August 2025 (page 1)

Reference and authority

Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.

Case reference
3368119
Application reference
25/00937/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
28 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
23 June 2025
Valid date
23 June 2025
Start date
26 June 2025
Planning authority decision date
22 April 2025
Appeal decision date
21 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
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
75134
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