Appeal 3308568
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
erection of a single storey detached self-contained annexe to rear.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
[name]
In granting planning permission for a detached annexe to the rear, both parties agreed that this could result in an increased parking demand from the existing situation. The appellant considers that the parking demand could be met through the existing driveway and garage. However, the Council consider the garage to be too small to be practically used for parking.
As such, an amended plan was submitted by the appellant during the planning application process showing an additional parking space to the front. Planning permission was subsequently granted subject to this parking space being provided, and maintained, in accordance with that plan. However, the appellant continues to dispute the need for this additional space to the front and maintains that the garage is sufficient. This has informed the following main issue.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is whether the disputed condition (No 2) is reasonable and necessary in the interests of highway safety within [address] with particular reference to off-street parking.
Section 05
Reasons
The presence of a garage does not automatically mean that it is practically capable of being used for parking a car, and I am mindful that some older garages were not built with the range of modern car sizes in mind.
The appellant advises that the garage at the host property was built during the 1980’s. It is small, and the Council indicate that the garage does not meet the space requirements set down within the Manual for Streets. The appellant has not disputed this, and I have no reason to consider otherwise. Moreover, I have no substantive evidence that the garage is capable of being used practically for parking a car. As such, I am not persuaded that this particular garage represents an appropriate off-street parking space.
There is a need for three car parking spaces associated with the proposed development and the existing dwelling. The existing driveway can provide two spaces. Given the width of [address], and the potential conflicts with other road users from indiscriminate parking along [address], it is necessary that the additional parking space is provided off-street.
As such, and given my findings on the garage, I find that the approved parking arrangements are reasonable and necessary in this instance to accord with the requirements of Policy EC4 of the East Riding Local Plan Strategy Document (2016). This says, amongst other things, that the number of parking spaces for all new development should reflect the expected car usage on the site.
I therefore conclude that the disputed condition (No 2) is reasonable and necessary in the interests of highway safety within [address] with particular reference to off-street parking.
For the reasons given above, the appeal is 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 1160No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 31 March 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 20 March 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3308568
- Application reference
- 22/00887/PLF
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- East Riding of Yorkshire Council
- Planning authority code
- E06000011
Casework details
The casework, procedure, development and linking details supplied by the official record.
- Casework type
- Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development type
- Householder developments
- 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
- 0.05 hectares
- Floor space
- 42 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
- 8 October 2022
- Valid date
- 6 December 2022
- Start date
- 2 February 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 7 September 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 31 March 2023
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
- 30654
- 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