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 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
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 25/00937/FU, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following
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.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect on the character and appearance of the area.
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