Appeal 3296162
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
5 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
the erection of single storey extension, garage extension and roof replacement.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and condition No 3 is deleted from planning permission [name]/2022/00117 dated 6 February 2022.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is whether the condition is necessary to protect the character and amenity of the area.
Section 04
Reasons
Planning permission was granted in February 2022 for two single storey extensions to [site address] , a detached bungalow set in a reasonable sized plot on [address]. The first, to replace a conservatory with a dining room and study was built by the date of the site visit whilst the second, to provide an integral garage following demolition of the existing detached garage, had not yet commenced. The condition in dispute, No 3, restricts the use of this garage to parking or storage without a further planning application.
Paragraph 56 of the National Planning Policy Framework states conditions should be kept to a minimum and only imposed where they are necessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects.
The Council argue that the condition is necessary as the potential use of the integral garage for additional habitable accommodation ‘has not been assessed’ and is close to the boundary of the site. However, the adjacent bungalow, No [address], is well screened from the site and the permitted extension is next to its garage rather than its living accommodation. The potential concern of the Council is not therefore established.
In its statement the Council also claim that without use of the garage for parking there may be insufficient parking provision on site. However, this is not given as a reason for imposing the condition, no concerns in this respect are included in the original officer report on the scheme and the appellant states there are three further spaces available for use.
Section 05
Conclusion
For these reasons condition No 3 is not necessary and should be deleted from the permission to comply with paragraph 56 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
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 1064No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 26 September 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 31 August 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3296162
- Application reference
- WA/2022/00117
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Waverley Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000216
Casework details
The casework, procedure, development and linking details supplied by the official record.
- Casework type
- Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development type
- Minor Dwellings
- Appeal type reason
- 4. Grant planning permission for the development subject to conditions to which you object
- Appeal reason
- Appeal Against Conditions
- Type detail
- Planning Appeals - Other
- 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
- 6 m²
- Number of residences
- 1
- 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
- Allowed
- Decision category
- Allowed
- Received date
- 2 April 2022
- Valid date
- 4 May 2022
- Start date
- 28 July 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 6 February 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 26 September 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
- Not recorded
- 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
- 21011
- 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