Appeal 3371422
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
7 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/rear extension, conversion of attic with raised roof height to form habitable rooms, roof light to front; removal of dormer to front, new dormer windows to front and rear; block up one ground floor window to rear; replacement of one ground floor window to rear with a larger window; new sliding doors to rear.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Procedural Matters
The application form identifies that works have commenced and not complete, during my site visit I observed that the works carried out are different to that of the proposal before me I have dealt with the proposal on the basis of the plans before me as opposed to works carried out, which I understand were the subject of a previous dismissed appeal1.
The Council changed the description of development from that referenced in the application form. In the interests of clarity, I have adopted the revised description of development, omitting reference to works being retrospective.
Section 04
Application for costs
An application for costs was made by [name] against Leeds City Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision.
Section 05
Main Issue
The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 06
Reasons
The appeal site is a modest semi-detached bungalow situated within a predominantly residential area. The appeal site is located at an elevated position in the streetscene similar to other bungalows on the eastern side of the street. 1 APP/N4720/D/25/3364273
Many properties in the area have been historically extended or altered. The front dormer replaces a previous dormer of similar size and design, the roof light to the front is discrete in scale, I note that the Council did not raise any specific concerns about this aspect of the proposal, I agree.
The proposed development includes the removal of the newly created hip-to-gable roof extension. The proposal also includes raising part of the roof, the creation of an infill side extension with enlarged hipped roof which would force a reduction in size of the currently constructed rear dormer. Despite the changes the proposed development would retain a bulky appearance dominating most of the rear roof. The large box design extending from eaves to ridge would create a top-heavy form of development incongruous to the modest scale of the existing bungalow and streetscene in general.
During my site visit I observed other rear dormer additions in the immediate area which varied in scale and design. Nevertheless, dormers of a scale similar to the proposal before me were not common.
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, and Policies GP5 and BD6 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 also conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) which seeks to ensure developments are of good design appropriate and sympathetic to their surroundings.
Section 07
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.
Costs Decision
- Extracted inspector · page 1
- Inspector attribution ID 126No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 20 October 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 10 October 2025 (page 1)
Appeal Decision
- Extracted inspector · page 1
- Inspector attribution ID 126No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 20 October 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 10 October 2025 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3371422
- Application reference
- 25/03215/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
- 23 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
- 19 August 2025
- Valid date
- 18 August 2025
- Start date
- 20 August 2025
- Planning authority decision date
- 6 August 2025
- Appeal decision date
- 20 October 2025
Case administration
Published recovery, call-in, costs and enforcement information for this case.
- Redetermined
- No
- Bespoke
- Yes
- Date recovered
- Not recorded
- Date not recovered or derecovered
- Not recorded
- Call-in date
- Not recorded
- Costs applied for
- Yes
- 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
- 78256
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:29
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21