Appeal 3291537
Public case and site metadata stored from the official casework database, including fields that were empty in the source release.
A clearer next step
See how Inspectors approached issues like yours
Bring your planning decision into a private workspace. We separate the disputed points, then match them with source-located Inspector reasoning from similar appeals.
- See which issues the decision appears to turn on
- Compare the facts and open the full appeal records
One private comparison
How the refusal review worksOne-off service · No subscription
Similar appeals are evidence to inspect, not a prediction of your outcome.
Official decision document
The decision, section by section
4 sections
Read the development description and the Inspector’s text from the official decision PDF in source order. Source headings are retained where available. Personal and contact details are removed by an automated privacy filter; this is source material, not Rules for You analysis.
Section 01
Development description
a single storey front extension to form extended garage and new porch.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal property is a detached house fronting the road in a large estate of housing dating from the 1960s. The Council's Character Areas Supplementary Planning Document identifies the character of this area being houses set back from the road on an irregular building line, with varying plot sizes and a verdant, spacious character.
I saw at my site visit that the area accords to that character. [site address] is set in a small group of houses set slightly further back from the road than other houses further to the north and the south. There is a spacious character to the front of the houses. The proposal would see a single storey extension to the front of the house, projecting 5.6m from the existing front elevation and be 5.44m wide. This would provide a new area of garaging for the house.
I acknowledge that there are forward projections to houses in the area, most notably at Nos. 7 & 9 to the north west and Nos. 17 & 23 to the south east. However, these are notably less deep than the extension proposed in this appeal. Although the proposed extension to No. 11 would have the same building line relative to the pavement as No. 7, that house is positioned closer to the pavement; hence, the depth of its front extensions is not so great as www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate that proposed at No, 11; it is the absolute size and width of the proposed extension that is objectionable in this instance, as the projection forward is of such an extent that it would appear disproportionate and out of scale with the size and design of the existing house. This would be widely visible in the area due to long views along [address], which would be intrusive to the spacious character of the street.
I appreciate that the appellant wishes to improve the ability to keep cars under cover. However, I must balance this personal wish against the wider public considerations of the effect on the character and appearance of the area. he The general thrust of saved Policy P4/12 of the Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan 2010, Policy CP24 of the Tonbridge and Malling Borough Core Strategy 2007, and Policy SQ1 of the Tonbridge and Malling Management Development and the Environment Development Plan Document 2010 is to seek a high standard of design in all new development that accords with its locality. It is my conclusion that the harm to the area is of a magnitude that outweighs the personal benefits arising to the appellant. The appeal is therefore dismissed.
Planning inspector and document dates
The official casework attribution is grouped under a one-way keyed hash and shown only by its local identifier. Decision-letter dates and page references are extracted by fixed first-page rules and checked against that authoritative record.
Appeal Decision
- Extracted inspector · page 1
- Inspector attribution ID 97No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 28 July 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 30 June 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3291537
- Application reference
- TM/21/02130/FL
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000115
Casework details
The casework, procedure, development and linking details supplied by the official record.
- Casework type
- Householder (HAS)
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development type
- Householder developments
- Appeal type reason
- 1. Refused planning permission
- Appeal reason
- Refusal
- Type detail
- Planning Appeals - Full
- Jurisdiction
- Transferred
- Link status
- Not Linked
Site and development
Published appeal-site measurements and planning designations, without the withheld precise location fields.
- Site area
- Not recorded
- Floor space
- 4 m²
- Number of residences
- 0
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- No
- Affects setting of a listed building
- Not recorded
- Historic building grant made
- Not recorded
- Relates to a conservation area
- Not recorded
- Flooding is an issue
- Not recorded
- Site within an AONB
- Not recorded
- Site within an SSSI
- Not recorded
Decision and dates
The published outcome and every imported case date.
- Official decision
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 27 January 2022
- Valid date
- 27 January 2022
- Start date
- 7 February 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 11 November 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 28 July 2022
Case administration
Published recovery, call-in, costs and enforcement information for this case.
- Redetermined
- No
- Bespoke
- No
- Date recovered
- Not recorded
- Date not recovered or derecovered
- Not recorded
- Call-in date
- Not recorded
- Costs applied for
- No
- Enforcement grounds count
- Not recorded
- Enforcement grounds
- Not recorded
Source and catalogue history
When this record appeared in the rolling official release and when the catalogue stored it.
- Source
- Planning Inspectorate casework database
- Source data system
- Horizon
- Dataset status
- Current release
- Catalogue record ID
- 18487
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:26
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21