Appeal 3373601
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
retrospective application for 1.[address] boarded timber fence with gate.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Procedural Matters
At the time of my site visit, I observed that the development was in situ. The application has been submitted retrospectively; I have dealt with the appeal on this basis
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the development on highway safety.
Section 05
Reasons
The appeal site is a two-storey end terraced property situated on a corner plot at the junction of [address] and [name]. Boundary treatments in the area vary, however I observed during my site visit there were many examples of close boarded timber fencing similar to the proposal before me.
The proposed boundary treatment contains vehicular gates located on the corner of the junction. Double yellow lines restrict on-street parking outside the appeal site, notwithstanding this, drivers of vehicles leaving the appeal site would have limited visibility splay. Whilst there is a 20mph speed limit in the area due to the location of the gates combined with the height and solid design the development reduces the visibility between [address] and [name], creating conflict between vehicles and pedestrians.
The development creates off-street parking nevertheless the development has the potential to obstruct the highway through opening and closing of the gates which are not set back to accommodate a waiting vehicle.
I find that the appellant has failed to demonstrate that the access would not harm highway safety. There is conflict with Policies P10 and T2 of the [name] (as amended by the [name] 2019), Leeds Local Plan and Policy GP5 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan (2006) which amongst other things seeks to ensure developments are of a good design and do not create or add to problems of highway safety.
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
- 1 December 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 16 November 2025 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3373601
- Application reference
- 25/02920/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
- 148 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
- 24 September 2025
- Valid date
- 1 October 2025
- Start date
- 1 October 2025
- Planning authority decision date
- 11 July 2025
- Appeal decision date
- 1 December 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
- 80645
- 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