Appeal 3368917
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
6 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
for fence with gate to front.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Procedural Matter
The application made clear that the scheme had been submitted retrospectively, the proposed development was in place at the time of my site visit I have dealt with the proposal accordingly.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 05
Reasons
The appeal site is a semi-detached property situated on busy road. Front residential boundary treatments in the immediate area generally comprise low brick wall some with metal railings, whilst there are slight variations of boundary treatments there is a commonality in form and materials.
The front boundary treatment is separated by a wide verge from the [address]. The fence is a contemporary black metal slat fence, despite the set back due to the material, height and design the fence is a dominant feature which is incongruous to the area.
There is a similar fence to the front of the adjacent property No. [address], I understand from the Council this is unauthorised. Whilst unauthorised development can contribute to the character and appearance of an area, this fence appears relatively new I have no substantive evidence before me that the Council are not progressing enforcement action against this development. I give the existence of this adjacent fence limited weight in terms of its contribution to the character and appearance of the area.
I find that the development would harm the character and appearance of the area. There is conflict with Policy P10 of the [name] (as amended by the [name] 2019), Leeds Local Plan, Policies GP5, BD6 and N25 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan (2006) which amongst other things seeks to ensure developments are of good design and appropriate to character of the area.
There is conflict with Policy HDG1 of the Leeds City Council, [name], Supplementary Planning Document (2012) which seeks to ensure development respects the locality.
Section 06
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
- 27 August 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 8 August 2025 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3368917
- Application reference
- 25/01531/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
- Not recorded
- Number of residences
- 0
- 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
- 8 July 2025
- Valid date
- 8 July 2025
- Start date
- 10 July 2025
- Planning authority decision date
- 18 June 2025
- Appeal decision date
- 27 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
- 75370
- 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