®Planning appeal decision
Stonewood, Almshouse Hill, Leeds, LS23 6QX
Planning appeal 6010416 at Stonewood, Almshouse Hill, Leeds, LS23 6QX (Leeds City Council) was dismissed on 4 September 2026 by Inspector Ryan Cowley, by written representations. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area (including whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Bramham Conservation Area; whether it would preserve the setting of the Grade II Listed Building at Bramham War Memorial; and its effect on protected trees).
Change of use of transitional land to domestic garden with decked area, first floor side extension, single storey side extension with balcony, single storey rear lean-to extension (store) and alterations to side garden to create two parking spaces, retaining features (gabions with planting and stone facing) and the removal of two trees that are leaning over third-party land
- Authority
- Leeds City Council
- Appeal type
- Planning
- Procedure
- Written
- Development
- residential
- Inspector
- Ryan Cowley
- Postcode
- LS23 6QX
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area (including whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Bramham Conservation Area; whether it would preserve the setting of the Grade II Listed Building at Bramham War Memorial; and its effect on protected trees)
- The effect of the proposal on highway safety
- Whether the proposal would provide an appropriate biodiversity net gain
What decided it
The identified harm to designated heritage assets, highway safety and inadequate biodiversity net gain provision substantially outweighed the modest public benefits of the proposal.
The modest public benefits of the proposal were substantially outweighed by the identified adverse effects on the character and appearance of the area including harm to designated heritage assets and protected trees, harm to highway safety, and inadequate biodiversity net gain provision, such that the presumption in favour of sustainable development did not apply.
What the Inspector cited
- Development plan policies
- Policy SP13Policy P10Policy P11Policy P12Policy GP5Policy N19Policy N20Policy LD1Policy NE2Policy H3Policy H5Policy Land 2Policy G9Policy T2HDG1
How the Inspector dealt with each one is set out in the app, in order: the development plan, national policy, housing land supply, other considerations and the planning balance, beside the letter.
See how each was appliedThe decision letter
Town Planner Pro holds this letter. The Appeals plan opens it and every other letter we hold, all of them searchable, with the main issues and what decided each case picked out. We do not show letters on the free site because they carry people’s names and addresses.
With an account
What an account adds to this decision
More decisions in Leeds City Council
The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2026
- Dismissed1 October 20266011321Land to the Rear of, 14 to 16 Cross Hills Kippax, Kippax, LS25 7JP
- Dismissed21 September 2026600973712 Hyde Park Terrace, Leeds, LS6 1BJ
- Allowed3 September 202660079079 Vinery Grove, Richmond Hill, Leeds, LS9 9LT
- Dismissed14 August 20266006204193 Easterly Road, Leeds, LS8 2RB
- Dismissed10 July 202660064821A Back Newton Grove, Potternewton, Leeds, LS7 4HL
The main issues, what decided it, the planning balance and the policies and judgments listed as cited are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro and are our summary, not the Inspector’s words; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.