Appeal 3304443
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
6 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
installation of an electronically operated sectional door to car port.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for installation of an electronically operated sectional door to car port at [site address] , Wouldham, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 22/00698/FL, and the plans submitted with it.
Section 03
Main Issue
The effect of the proposal on highway and pedestrian safety in [address].
Section 04
Reasons
The Managing Development and the [name] was adopted in 2010. Policy SQ8 establishes that development proposals should comply with the parking standards and will only be permitted where they would not significantly harm highway safety. The door across the front of the original car port has already been installed. According to the application form, work started in October 2021.
The Council expects that properties of this size and in this location should be allocated at least two vehicle parking spaces. In this respect it draws a distinction between open car ports and garages as it does not consider the latter to be a parking space. Indeed, the appellant’s comments about the need to secure stored items indicates that this may be more of a priority for some residents than keeping a car under cover. However, the appellant’s photographic evidence shows that there is sufficient width and depth at the front of the property to park two cars off of the road if required.
In any event, whilst on-street parking occurs in [address], there is nothing to indicate that this happens regularly or at all times of the day. If vehicles do park on the footway opposite No 1, then there would remain scope to walk on the pavement on the other side of the cul-de-sac. Furthermore, given the limited number of houses, it is reasonable to assume that traffic levels are light. There is also no indication that on street parking blocks the movement of vehicles. Therefore, the consequences of any roadside parking in association with No 1 would be insignificant and most unlikely to be hazardous.
The appeal decision at [address] (Ref: APP/H2265/D/21/3286023) for a door to a car port dealt with similar issues. In both cases the appeal properties can accommodate off-street parking spaces in line with the Council’s standards.
To conclude there is no unacceptable impact on highway safety and the effect on the road network is minimal. The expectations of Policy SQ8 are met.
Section 05
Other Matters
An objection was raised to the breaking of a “planning agreement” for Peters Village. A condition was imposed on the reserved matters for Phase 1 of the development restricting the enclosure of the front elevations of car ports. However, adequate provision for vehicle parking can be made within the site. The implication for any covenant on the property is a civil matter.
Section 06
Conclusion
The proposal accords with the development plan and there are no material considerations to the contrary. Therefore, for the reasons given above, the appeal should succeed.
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 311No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 11 November 2024Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 6 November 2024 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3304443
- Application reference
- 22/00698/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
- 17 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
- Allowed
- Decision category
- Allowed
- Received date
- 3 August 2022
- Valid date
- 3 August 2022
- Start date
- 14 October 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 18 May 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 11 November 2024
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
- 59752
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:28
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21