Maldon District Council appeal evidence
Refused over highway safety in Maldon?
Compare the parking and access points in the selected examples with the points in your refusal notice.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 10 of 98
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 3
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 7
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 10
- of 10 matched records
AI-assisted. Cited sources and wording were checked before publication. Based on 5 source-linked examples shown below. Review method and limits.
Planning Data area point: Maldon LPA (51.709479, 0.783747). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Maldon District Council appeal findings
Maldon extensions: parking and vehicle access
The selected examples lean more towards dismissed cases than the matched local set, and several extracts give conclusions without supporting analysis.
Counted against appeals
Maldon parking and access concerns
Parking and highway-safety harm
The inspectors concluded that the extensions would harm parking and highway safety, but the cited passages give no further reasoning.
Service and emergency access
One inspector identified potential highway-safety harm and referred to enough parking plus safe access for service and emergency vehicles.
Helped or needed
Maldon parking evidence that helped
Adequate parking for dwelling size
The inspector concluded that parking was adequate for a dwelling of that size and found no resulting highway-safety concern.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify a parking shortfall for your dwelling's size?
- Does it explain how your proposal could affect service or emergency access?
- Does it show the parking and access impact, not just state harm?
Appeal 22896 is edge-of-scope: its cited passage concerns a permitted-development fallback, not highway safety. These decisions do not predict another result.
Appeal evidence examples
Compare allowed and dismissed appeal reasoning
Each example separates the development, the Inspector-stated issue that selected it, and the reasoning from the decision. Compare the facts as well as the outcome: these examples do not predict how a different proposal would be decided.
Allowed appeal examples
1 example
12 May 2023 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a single storey side and rear and two storey rear extension with single storey splayed front bay and canopy.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect on the character and appearance of the area; and the effect on highway safety.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
In conclusion, the proposal would improve the limited public appearance of the dwelling and would be of a form that would be acceptable with regard to the impact on neighbouring residents and the local area. Parking provision would be adequate for a dwelling of this size and would not lead to concerns with regard to highway safety. As there are no other matters that weigh against the proposal, I allow the appeal.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
28 February 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
two-storey side extension, part single and part two-storey rear extension, and a loft conversion.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: • parking and highway safety; • the living conditions of the occupiers of No 20 Church Green, with regard to outlook; and • the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Therefore, for these reasons, I conclude that the proposal would have an unacceptably harmful effect on parking and highway safety and, therefore, is contrary in this regard to Policies D1 and T2 of the LDP, and to the SPD, described above.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
14 September 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
2 storey side extension consisting of a ground floor garage to provide parking with the second floor adding a playroom to the property. Second storey extension above existing ground floor porch to increase bedroom 3.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposed side extension on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area; and the effect on parking and highway safety.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Therefore, for these reasons, I conclude that the proposal would have an unacceptably harmful effect on parking and highway safety and, therefore, is contrary in this regard to Policies D1 and T2 of the LDP, and to the SPD, as described above. It is also contrary to the Framework, with regard to the effects of development on highway safety3.
Paragraph 16 · Source page 3
2 November 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
two-storey side extension and front porch.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposal on (1) the character and appearance of the appeal property and the surrounding area; and (2) parking provision and highway safety.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The appellants have set out the ‘fallback’ position of an extension that could be constructed as ‘Permitted Development’1 (PD). However, whilst an extension could be built up to the side boundary, it would be much lower in eaves and ridge height than the proposal, and therefore with less impact on the dwelling and the street scene. I do not share the appellants view that the proposal would be more aligned with other nearby extensions than a PD scheme. Given the material difference in size, the fallback position would not justify acceptance of the appeal proposal.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
2 November 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
No verified development description was available for this example.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposal on (1) the character and appearance of the street scene and locality; and ( [site address] ) parking provision and highway safety.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore conclude that the proposal has the potential to harm highway safety, contrary to the aims of [name] D1 and T2, which amongst other criteria require the provision of sufficient parking facilities having regard to the Council’s adopted parking standards, and sufficient and safe access for service and emergency vehicles.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 3