- Decision
- dismissed, 30 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: P Eggleton
- Authority
- Leeds (Yorkshire and the Humber)
- Appeal reference
- 6011983
- Application reference
- 26/00013/FU
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Raised deck to form an external seating area, replacement canopy and new boundary treatments at a hospitality unit (modifying existing unauthorised works)
- Site context
- inside settlement, TPO
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- DP3(2), DP3(3)
- Development plan policies
- Leeds Core Strategy (as amended 2019) P10, Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006) BD6, N19, GP5, Accessible Leeds SPD 2016
- Main issues
- character and appearance; accessibility for all users
Summary
A revised scheme for a raised outdoor seating deck, a smaller canopy and planters at a hospitality unit in Woodlesford was dismissed. The inspector found the appearance acceptable, which resolved the concern behind an earlier dismissed appeal. But the ramped access failed the Council's accessibility standards, which is a conflict with DP3(2). DP3(3) then directed refusal, despite substantial weight to the economic benefits under E2.
Issues and findings
- Character and appearance: acceptable. The changes "would reflect design detailing already accepted within this parade and would address concerns raised during the previous appeal" (DL ¶7).
- Conservation area setting: no harm. "This proposal would have a lesser impact and would not harm the conservation area" (DL ¶6).
- Accessibility, DP3(2): CONFLICT. "It is evident that access to the premises could be significantly improved by a design that has full regard to the access requirements of those with disabilities" (DL ¶11). The proposal "conflicts with Policy DP3(2) of the National Planning Policy Framework 2026 which seeks to create well-designed places that will function well over the lifetime of the development" (DL ¶11).
- DP3(3): FAIL. "Framework Policy DP3(3) is clear that development proposals should be refused if, without clear justification, they conflict with relevant aspects of the principles in Policy DP3(2), which I have found to be the case" (DL ¶12).
- Amended access plan: not accepted. "As it represents a significant change to the proposal, I am not able to accept it" (DL ¶10).
Planning balance
No S4 balance is named. The inspector set E2 substantial weight against the DP3(3) direction to refuse: "Although there are matters that provide substantial weight in its favour, as it is likely that accessibility could be improved, without significant prejudice to the operation of the premises, it would conflict with the design expectations of the development plan and the Framework" (DL ¶13).
What made the difference
The access. The appearance objections had been overcome, and the business case carried substantial weight. But the ramp did not meet the local accessibility standard, the appellant did not dispute that, and a better access was plainly achievable. Because the harm was avoidable, there was no clear justification for it. An application showing the western access would have removed the only objection.
Transferable points
- Inclusive access is a DP3(2) design principle; a failure against a local accessibility standard engages DP3(3) (DL ¶11-12).
- Substantial E2 weight does not supply a clear justification where the design conflict could be avoided without significant prejudice to the business (DL ¶13).
- A materially different access cannot be introduced at appeal or by condition when the Council and third parties have not seen it (DL ¶10).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| DP3(2) | conflict | ramped access too steep and narrow for people using mobility aids, contrary to the Accessible Leeds SPD; letter cites DP3(2) generally and the words "function well over the lifetime of the development", which are in DP3(2)(a) (DL 8-11) | |
| DP3(3) | fail | DP3(3) quoted with the clear-justification qualifier; conflict with DP3(2) found; no justification because access could be improved without significant prejudice to the business (DL 12-13) | |
| E2 | benefit | substantial | E2(1)(a) economic benefits of commercial development allowing a business to invest, expand or adapt; more outdoor hospitality floorspace (DL 12) |
| LP P10(i)(ii), BD6, N19 (local) | accord | planters and a smaller, set-back canopy match a scheme accepted elsewhere in the parade; no harm to character or appearance (DL 4-7) | |
| HE9 | neutral | mapped: Framework heritage policy not cited; site is outside but adjacent to the Woodlesford Conservation Area; no harm to the area from development in its setting; the letter cites the s72 duty (DL 6) |
Key facts
- Previous appeal to regularise the existing works dismissed in October 2025 (APP/N4720/W/25/3369088) (DL 3)
- The appellant did not dispute that the ramped access fails the SPD on steepness and width (DL 8-9)
- A plan showing a new access on the western edge was offered at appeal; not accepted because it was a significant change that the Council and third parties had not seen, and it could not be secured by condition (DL 10)
- Public Sector Equality Duty (Equality Act 2010 s149) cited; disability is a protected characteristic (DL 8)
- No switch paragraph; the letter applies "the National Planning Policy Framework 2026" by policy code (DL 11-12)
Sources
This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.