Appeal 3370886
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
described as householder planning for a 2 storey side extension of an existing two storey semi-detached house.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the development on the living conditions of occupiers of No’s. 30 and [address].
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal site lies within a predominantly residential area, comprising mainly terraced or semi-detached properties. The appeal site is at an elevated position in comparison to No’s. 30 and [address] which would face onto the proposed development.
The proposed development would extend the built form of the existing property closer to the shared boundary with No’s. 30 and 32. Whilst the proposed development would be set down in terms of roof ridge height from that of the original property and despite the presence of a detached outbuilding within rear garden of No. 32 views towards the proposed development would be prominent and overbearing.
I find that due to the scale and location of the proposed development at an elevated position the proposed development would be dominant and oppressive to the occupiers of the neighbouring properties. Due to the orientation of proposed development which would be to the south/southwest of No’s 30 and 32 the appeal proposal would overshadow the private rear gardens of the neighbouring properties, which would reduce the enjoyment of the garden.
I conclude that the proposed development would harm living conditions of occupiers of No’s. 30 and [address]. There is conflict with Policy DS5 of the Local Plan for Bradford District, Core Strategy Development Plan Document (2017), which amongst other things seeks to protect the amenity of existing or prospective residents.
Section 05
Other Matters
The appellant has highlighted that the proposed development is required due to personal circumstances, in terms of physical and medical need. I have had regard to the comments raised. I have not been provided with substantive evidence to demonstrate that the proposed development would be the only way to fulfil the needs of the appellant, I therefore give this limited weight.
The appellant has drawn my attention to other two-storey side extensions in the surrounding area. I have not been provided with substantive evidence to compare developments to the one before me, nevertheless during my site visit I did not observe any comparable development, I give this limited weight.
The appellant has raised procedural concerns relating to the determination of the application in relation to the lack of contact between the Council and the appellant during the determination of the application. This is beyond the remit of this appeal and does not influence my findings.
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
- 9 September 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 5 September 2025 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3370886
- Application reference
- 25/01249/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
- 30 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
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 11 August 2025
- Valid date
- 14 August 2025
- Start date
- 14 August 2025
- Planning authority decision date
- 11 June 2025
- Appeal decision date
- 9 September 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
- 76050
- 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