Appeal 3371176
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
4 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 dormer to front elevation.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 04
Reasons
The proposal would result in a linked pair of dormers to the front elevation of this property. The dwelling has already been extended with the hipped roof having been replaced by a gable. The form of the proposed front roof addition would include two pitched roof dormers linked by a flat roof element to provide a larger scale of raised internal roof height. It would dominate the front roof slope as a result of its overall size. Whilst the property has rear roof additions, these are not publicly visible. This is not an area where front dormers are a characteristic of the street scene. This structure would detract from the existing character of the area and the form of the structure would represent poor design.
Front dormers are considered specifically in the [name] (2012) which advises that dormer windows to the front will not normally be considered acceptable, particularly in prominent locations, on unbroken roof slopes or where traditional dormers are being replaced by box-style structures. It advises that two small well designed dormer windows are generally considered to be more sympathetic than one large dormer window. However, this proposal is not replacing an existing dormer and the conjoining of the two elements would result in a large addition that would be contrary to the expectations of the guidance.
Reference has been made to other front dormers in the area. The example at [address] appears to be a historic addition and it is not evident that it was approved by the council. The houses at [address] are relatively new and appear to have been designed with front dormers although these are separate features not joined by the flat roof element now proposed. They therefore make up Appeal Decision: APP/N4720/D/25/3371176 the character of that new area of development. There is no evidence that the council has been inconsistent in its approach and the examples put forward do not suggest that this proposal should be approved.
In conclusion, the proposal would detract from the existing character and appearance of this area and would represent poor design. It would be contrary to the design expectations of policy P10 of the [name] (as amended by the [name] 2019); and policies GP5 and BD6 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review - 2006). It would also conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework which is clear that development that is not well designed should be refused.
I have had regard to the information provided by the appellant and accept that the works would result in improved accommodation and further investment. However, these matters do not outweigh my concerns. I therefore dismiss the appeal.
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
- 30 September 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 15 September 2025 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3371176
- Application reference
- 25/03531/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
- 15 August 2025
- Valid date
- 18 August 2025
- Start date
- 18 August 2025
- Planning authority decision date
- 7 August 2025
- Appeal decision date
- 30 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
- 77153
- 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