Appeal Survival Rates
Not every refusal reason is equally fatal. We read thousands of PINS decision letters and measured which contested issues actually survive appeal — nationally and in your authority — plus how often a revised resubmission succeeds instead.
Which refusal reasons survive appeal in Leeds City Council?
Share of decided appeals raising each issue that were allowed. Higher = softer refusal reason. Authority rates shown where at least 10 decided appeals raise the issue; grey bars are the national baseline.
| Refusal reason | Leeds City Council | National | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Planning obligations / s.106 | n=1 — too few to rate | 36.0% (n=430) | |
| Residential amenity (privacy, light, outlook, noise) | 32.2% (n=59) | 28.8% (n=5,496) | |
| Principle of development / location | n=7 — too few to rate | 28.5% (n=1,793) | |
| Character & appearance / design | 24.8% (n=165) | 28.4% (n=11,358) | |
| Heritage (listed buildings, conservation areas) | 21.4% (n=42) | 26.8% (n=4,269) | |
| Green Belt | 28.1% (n=32) | 26.4% (n=1,778) | |
| Highway safety / parking | 10.0% (n=20) | 26.4% (n=2,199) | |
| Flood risk / drainage | n=2 — too few to rate | 25.2% (n=975) | |
| Trees / ecology | 20.0% (n=10) | 23.6% (n=1,573) | |
| Overdevelopment / cramming | n=6 — too few to rate | 23.3% (n=451) | |
| Standard of accommodation / space standards | 23.5% (n=17) | 21.3% (n=2,220) |
Derived from PINS decision letters with extracted text (not every appeal is indexed). A reason being "raised" means the Inspector identified it among the main issues — observational data, not a prediction for any individual scheme.
Refused? Resubmitting often beats appealing
Measured from refusals in our decision corpus that were followed by a fresh application at the same address.
69.1%of first resubmissions approved nationally (n=1241) ~86 days
typical refusal-to-redecision gap
Not enough measured resubmissions in this authority yet to quote a local rate.
The designation reality check
Measured approval rates for decided applications inside each designation vs the same authorities outside it. The gap is smaller than most people assume — the risk is usually the proposal, not the postcode.
| Designation | Approval inside | Approval outside | Effect |
|---|---|---|---|
| Conservation area | 87.4% (n=5,433) | 83.1% | +4.3 points |
| Article 4 area | 82.7% (n=6,867) | 85.5% | -2.8 points |
| Green Belt | 77.6% (n=2,273) | 85.4% | -7.8 points |
National figures across authorities with a full decisions stream; conservation-area and Article 4 rows use precisely-located applications only. Observational, not causal — the mix of what people apply for differs inside designations.