LPA Profile
What we hold on a single planning authority: appeal behaviour, what they refuse on, which policies they cite, and how current their local plan is. For the national league table and 47-year statistical history, see Council Performance. New: which refusal reasons survive appeal here — measured from real Inspectorate decision letters.
City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council
GSS E08000032 · Portal: idox (ok) · council register
What this authority refuses on
Classified from the reasons in decision notices we hold for this council. Categories can overlap — one reason often engages more than one issue.
| Objection type | Reasons |
|---|---|
| Neighbour amenity | 1 |
| Missing information or evidence | 1 |
| Principle of development | 1 |
How this council decides
Measured against the published determination target on 1,381 decisions. Average window from valid date to target: 53 days (the statutory period is 56 days for most applications, 91 for majors).
(4+ days before target)
(final 3 days)
from valid to decision
This authority runs to the wire: most decisions land in the last few days before the statutory target. Chasing before then rarely brings a decision forward.
Which day decisions land
| Mon | 18.1% | |
| Tue | 21.9% | |
| Wed | 19.2% | |
| Thu | 16% | |
| Fri | 24.8% |
An even working week is 20% a day. Amber marks a day carrying 26% or more.
By application type
| Type | Decisions | After target | On deadline |
|---|---|---|---|
| Full | 706 | 29% | 65% |
| Outline | 276 | 13% | 62% |
| Conditions | 114 | 20% | 42% |
| Trees | 101 | 59% | 3% |
| Heritage | 64 | 42% | 39% |
| Amendment | 62 | 39% | 40% |
| Advertising | 46 | 30% | 61% |
What "after the target" means. Published data cannot distinguish an agreed extension of time from a target that was simply missed — both appear the same way. This measures when the decision was issued relative to the statutory target, and nothing more. Deadline data is currently available for London authorities only.
Policies most often cited in refusals
Case officers in our data
| Officer | Applications | Refused |
|---|---|---|
| Carole Howarth | 2 | 0 |
| Caleb Sheehan | 2 | 0 |
| David Middlemas | 1 | 0 |
| Adam Cayton | 1 | 0 |
| Christopher Seelig | 1 | 0 |
| Thomas Smart | 1 | 0 |
| Ben Chapman | 1 | 0 |
| Nina Preston | 1 | 0 |
Counts come from the applications we have scraped, which is a fraction of each officer's caseload. Treat as a sample of who is active, not as a performance measure of an individual.
Agents most active here
| Agent / firm | Applications |
|---|---|
| PD Architectural Services | 70 |
| Belmont Design Services Ltd | 63 |
| Keighley Tree Services | 47 |
| Euro Engineering Consultant | 44 |
| Khawaja Planning Services | 43 |
| Mukesh Architectural Consultancy Ltd | 24 |
| RWC Tree Surgeons | 22 |
| G P Gill Ltd | 21 |
Development plan
Core Strategy DPD
Adoption date not published in the national register
Plan documents
National statistics for this authority →
Councils with data on file
On the numbers. The refusal rate, officers and agents here are computed from the applications PlanningCore has collected for this authority — for most councils that is a recent sample rather than the full register, and the date range above tells you which. The appeal overturn rate comes from Planning Inspectorate decisions and covers a much longer period. Use the national statistics page for complete, official volumes.