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.
Leeds City Council
GSS E08000035 · Portal: idox (ok) · council register
Official statistics — is development moving through the system?
MHCLG quarterly planning returns (PS1/PS2), last 4 quarters 2025 Q3 to 2026 Q2, and the government's latest Housing Delivery Test. These are the authority's own statutory returns, not our scrape.
Peer ranks compare only metropolitan districts with more than 50 decisions in the window, the same floor as the national rank. A rank among peers is the fairer read: types of authority carry very different caseloads.
| Type | Decisions | Approved | In time |
|---|---|---|---|
| Major | 91 | 87.9% | 79.2% |
| Minor | 688 | 79.7% | 88.8% |
| Other | 2,686 | 81.8% | — |
| of which householder | 1,960 | 83.2% | 95.1% |
Delivery at or above 95%: no HDT consequence.
| Dataset | Publisher | Covers this authority | Loaded | Official source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Planning application decisions (PS2) | MHCLG | 1988 Q4 to 2026 Q2 (151 quarters) | 25 Oct 2026 · 68,583 rows nationally | Live tables |
| Planning application flow (PS1) | MHCLG | 1988 Q4 to 2026 Q2 (151 quarters) | 25 Oct 2026 · 42,861 rows nationally | Live tables |
| Housing Delivery Test 2025 | MHCLG | 2022/23 to 2024/25 | 18 Aug 2026 | Measurement |
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 |
|---|---|
| Missing information or evidence | 4 |
How this council decides
Measured against the published determination target on 3,016 decisions. Average window from valid date to target: 52 days (the statutory period is 56 days for most applications, 91 for majors).
(4+ days before target)
(final 3 days)
(after the target)
valid date to decision
This authority is mixed: a substantial share of decisions land after the statutory target, so treat the target as indicative.
Which day applications are submitted, validated and decided
| Submitted (n=3,016) | Validated (n=3,016) | Decided (n=3,016) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mon | 21.1% | 21.1% | 17.9% | |||
| Tue | 21.7% | 21.7% | 21.8% | |||
| Wed | 19.6% | 19.6% | 21.2% | |||
| Thu | 18.6% | 18.6% | 20.9% | |||
| Fri | 18.9% | 18.9% | 18.1% | |||
An even working week is 20% a day. Amber marks a day carrying 26% or more. Submitted is the date the council received the application; validated is the date it was made valid and the clock started. All three columns use the same applications, so they can be read across.
By application type
| Type | Decisions | Before deadline | On deadline day | Late | Average days |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Full | 1,395 | 43% | 33% | 24% | 57 |
| Trees | 508 | 73% | 14% | 14% | 27 |
| Outline | 370 | 60% | 32% | 8% | 46 |
| Conditions | 336 | 65% | 11% | 24% | 50 |
| Amendment | 218 | 53% | 28% | 19% | 39 |
| Heritage | 83 | 34% | 31% | 35% | 66 |
| Advertising | 76 | 62% | 22% | 16% | 48 |
| Other | 21 | 38% | 29% | 33% | 27 |
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 comes from the council's own published determination target, captured where its portal exposes it (Idox councils and the London Datahub).
Agents most active here
| Agent / firm | Applications | Decided | Approved | Refused | Withdrawn | Success rate | Average days | Mostly brings | Seen |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aire Valley Tree Services Ltd | 18 | 11 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 100% | 26 | Trees (18) | Mar 2026 – Sep 2026 |
| Agent | 14 | 14 | 0 | 14 | 0 | 0% | 54 | Full (8) | Apr 2026 – Sep 2026 |
| The Tree Doctor | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 100% | 36 | Trees (2) | Jun 2026 – Jul 2026 |
| eleven52architects | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 100% | 60 | Full (2) | Apr 2026 – Aug 2026 |
| ATB Architectural ltd | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 50% | 54 | Full (2) | Jan 2026 – Mar 2026 |
| ADAS Planning | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 100% | 69 | Conditions (1) | May 2026 – Jul 2026 |
| Faum Architecture | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 100% | 54 | Full (1) | Mar 2026 – Apr 2026 |
| Agent Address Stephen Ormesher Suite 3 41 South King Street Manchester M2 6DE | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0% | 17 | Non Material Amendment (1) | Jul 2026 – Jul 2026 |
| Leeds Tree Care Ltd | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 100% | 47 | Trees (1) | Feb 2026 – Apr 2026 |
| Agent Address Mrs Anna Craig 27B Westgate Tadcaster LS24 9JB | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0% | 17 | Discharge of Conditions (1) | Jul 2026 – Aug 2026 |
| Man Go Monkey | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 100% | 32 | Trees (1) | Feb 2026 – Mar 2026 |
| Agent Address Mr Peter Johnson Innovation House 20 Fink Hill Horsforth Leeds LS18 4DH | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0% | 1 | Non Material Amendment (1) | Jul 2026 – Jul 2026 |
Success rate is approvals as a share of approvals plus refusals; withdrawn and other outcomes are excluded, so an agent who withdraws rather than takes a refusal will look stronger than the raw numbers suggest. Average days runs from the validated date to the decision. "Mostly brings" is the application type the firm appears on most often, which explains much of the difference: tree works and conditions discharge are approved far more often than new build. Counts are from the applications we have scraped, not the firm's full workload.
Development plan
Leeds Local Plan: Core Strategy (as amended by the Core Strategy Selective Review 2019)
Adoption date not published in the national register · plan period 2017-01-01–2033-01-01
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.
About this tool: LPA Profile
Deep-dive authority analysis — approval rates by type, refusal reason clustering, appeal overturn rates, average decision times, and strictness rankings.
Use to understand how your LPA behaves. Every council has different tendencies — some are design-focused, some are policy-strict, some are more pragmatic.
MHCLG planning statistics, appeal decision analysis
Use these tools to understand how your Local Planning Authority behaves — what they approve, what they refuse, how often appeals succeed, and what strategy gives you the best chance. This is behavioural intelligence, not just policy research.
Guidance to help you prepare — not formal planning advice. Check the current policy text and your council's local plan before relying on it.