Leeds City Council appeal evidence
Refused over permitted development in Leeds?
See how selected Leeds inspectors tested GPDO claims, from fallback evidence and conditions to dimensions and screened sites.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 9 of 500
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 4
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 5
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 8
- of 9 matched records
AI-assisted. Cited sources and wording were checked before publication. Based on 5 source-linked examples shown below. Review method and limits.
Planning Data area point: Leeds LPA (53.825783, −1.50603). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Leeds City Council appeal findings
Leeds GPDO claims: proof, limits and screening
The selected examples lean more towards dismissed appeals than the matched local set, so their reasoning is not a balanced sample.
Counted against appeals
Why Leeds GPDO claims were dismissed
A fallback needed proof
A possible rear extension was not treated as a fallback without a formally established position or an alternative scheme showing how it could be permitted development.
Dimensions and conditions blocked the claim
One extension exceeded the cited half-width limit. In another appeal, the Inspector concluded that a planning condition meant the proposal could not be permitted development.
Roof design made the fallback less harmful
The hip-to-gable fallback was considered less harmful than the large dormer, which appeared boxy, dominant and did not respond positively to the original roof form.
Helped or needed
Where screening helped Class E development
Screened areas reduced visual harm
In some site locations, boundary hedges, landform and screened views meant small Class E development was unlikely to significantly harm the visual aspect of openness.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does an existing condition remove the GPDO right you rely on?
- Can you formally establish the fallback scheme and its size?
- Does the refusal identify roof form, scale or visibility as harmful?
One dismissed dormer case uses GPDO only as a fallback comparison, so its roof-design reasoning sits at the edge of this issue. These decisions do not predict another result.
Appeal evidence examples
Compare allowed and dismissed appeal reasoning
Each example separates the development, the Inspector-stated issue that selected it, and the reasoning from the decision. Compare the facts as well as the outcome: these examples do not predict how a different proposal would be decided.
Allowed appeal examples
1 example
16 April 2024 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
variation of condition 3 (permitted development) of approval 20/02979/FU to amend condition wording to restore permitted development rights excluding Class A (Schedule 2, Part 1)without complying with a conditions attached to planning permission Ref 20/02979/FU, dated 9 November 2020.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether the condition [2] in respect of [name], E and F of the GPDO is necessary, reasonable and relevant to the development to be permitted, having regard to the openness of the Green Belt. 1 Council Reference: 21/09732/FU - Retrospective application for dormer to sides and rear. 2 Appeal Ref: APP/N4720/D/22/3296295 - side & rear dormer windows. 3 Council Reference: 18/07018/DHH - single storey rear extension, 3.975m to ridge height and 2.9m to eaves. [name]. 4 Council Reference: 20/02979/FU - Retrospective application for single storey rear extension; rending of dwelling.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Class E of the GPDO would permit development to be carried out on up to 50% of the total area of the curtilage, subject to other restrictions. I recognise that small-scale development under Class E would be unlikely to significantly harm the visual aspect of openness in some locations of the site due to existing boundary hedges, landform and screened views. However, due to the size of the appeal site, which the appellant advises is 1477m2, and elements of the appeal site which are highly visible, the spatial harm could be significant dependant on the number and scale of outbuildings erected. The Council would have no control over these, subject to the criteria in the GPDO.
Paragraph 17 · Source page 4
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
7 February 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
dormer loft conversion including hip to gable.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The appellant also refers to a Permitted Development ‘fall back’ position of being able to change the main roof from a hip to a gable under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (GDPO) Schedule 2 Part 1 Class B. When reviewing the alternative scheme, it is notable that the dormer in this instance would occupy an open roof slope as opposed to enveloping a gable roof form. As a result, I consider the fallback position would not be as harmful as the proposal to the character and appearance of the dwelling and surrounding area.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
The hip to gable and dormer extension would occupy a substantial portion of the southwest roof space with the ridge height increased as part of the gable conversion. The dormer would be large in its depth and width resulting in a large, boxy and dominant addition to the roof slope. It would appear as an overbearing extension and adversely alter the existing dwelling’s character and design through the introduction of an additional gable and accompanying dormer. Although the proposed additions to the roof would use appropriate materials, they would not respond positively to the original architecture or roof form of the host building. This is further exacerbated by the encroachment on the existing southwestern gable, a key design feature of the existing dwelling.
Paragraph 6 · Source pages 1, 2
8 November 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a single storey rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The appellant also refers to a fallback position of erecting a 3-metre-deep single storey rear extension under the allowances of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended). Specifically, Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A. There is no evidence before me that such a position has been formally established for the appeal site, or an alternative scheme setting out how this might be achieved. This would be a matter for determination through the submission of an appropriate application to consider whether such a scheme would be permitted development, and not a determination as part of this appeal. In any event, such a proposal would be for a shorter extension than the appeal scheme.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
There is a close boarded timber fence separating the gardens of the appeal building and No.8 but it would be much lower than the eaves and total height of the extension and thus would not sufficiently mitigate its adverse effects as I have explained them. The occupiers of No.8 have not objected to the appeal scheme, but this would not obviate the need for an assessment as to its effects in the context of the main issue.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 1
27 September 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
an additional storey to existing dwelling.
Issue identified by the Inspector
Given the above, the main issues are: • Whether the proposal would constitute permitted development; and if so, • The effect on i) the external appearance of the dwellinghouse; and ii) the amenity/living conditions of adjoining occupiers with particular regards to outlook and light.
Paragraph 5 · Source pages 1, 2
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore find that the proposal cannot be permitted development as it would be contrary to the condition imposed on the planning permission.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 2
30 July 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
No verified development description was available for this example.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in the appeal is whether or not the proposed extension is permitted development and, if it is, whether or not prior approval should be granted.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposal would be single storey and would not exceed 4m in height. However, the Council’s figures, which have not been disputed by the appellant, show that in this case, the width of the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would be greater than half the width of the original dwellinghouse. As a consequence, it precludes the proposal from being permitted development under paragraph A.1 (j) of the GPDO, and an application for planning permission is required.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2