Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over area character and appearance in Tonbridge and Malling?
Learn which site changes inspectors found harmful and what made a rear-garden outbuilding acceptable.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 29 of 65
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 9
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 19
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 28
- of 29 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: Tonbridge and Malling LPA (51.273635, 0.357948). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council appeal findings
Why visible bulk harmed Tonbridge and Malling’s area appearance
The selected examples have a different outcome mix from the matched local set. Appeal 37476 gives only a conclusion, without the analysis behind it.
Counted against appeals
Views, bulk and lost openness
Corner plot drew the eye
The side extension would cut wider estate views. Its corner, elevated position and long ridge would draw the eye.
Matching materials could not offset mass
Matching materials would not overcome the additional bulk and mass found inappropriate in that location.
Parking benefit did not outweigh harm
The owner’s wish to keep cars under cover did not outweigh the harm found to the area.
Helped or needed
What helped the rear-garden outbuilding
Scale suited adjacent development
The outbuilding’s scale was not excessive given the adjacent development.
Design suited its location
The inspector judged the outbuilding’s design and appearance to suit its location.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify lost views, bulk or lost openness?
- Does the refusal mention a corner plot or raised position?
- Does the refusal explain why your scale differs from nearby development?
Appeal 30676 is a rear-garden outbuilding, so it is a limited comparison for extensions and boundary work. 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
3 April 2023 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
the erection of an outbuilding within the rear garden.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For all of those reasons I find that the outbuilding is sensitive to its location in terms of design and appearance and that its scale is not excessive given the nature of adjacent development and the location of the site. It does not cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. In those respects the proposal is consistent with the aims of policy CP24 of the Tonbridge and [name] (2007) and policy SQ1 of the Managing Development and the Environment Development Plan Document (2010).
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
28 July 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a single storey front extension to form extended garage and new porch.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
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.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
11 September 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a two storey side extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in the appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The appeal proposal would cut down a proportion of the wider views on the estate. Travelling south out of [address] the proposal would protrude into the view, larger than the single storey garage currently on site. [address], the location on a corner plot and in a slightly elevated position makes the house prominent and its resulting elongated form with a long uniform roof ridge would draw the eye. The existing landscaped area on the appeal site would be reduced. Openness would be lost which I consider would be detrimental to the area. I am mindful of the fact that materials matching the existing dwelling could be used in the extension, nevertheless, this would not overcome the additional net bulk and mass of the property which would be inappropriate in this location. 10.I have borne in mind that the additional living accommodation would serve to house a family member and grandchildren who do not currently have a home of their own. I have considerable sympathy for these circumstances, however, they do not overcome the harm to character and appearance of the area which I have identified above. 11.I have noted the delay involved in obtaining the planning application decision from the Council but nevertheless I have to confine my considerations to the planning merits of the proposal, and I have done so. 12.Overall, I conclude that the proposal would unduly harm the character and appearance of the area. It would be contrary to policy CP24 of the Tonbridge and [name] (adopted 2007) and chapter 12 of the NPPF.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
21 August 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the removal of an existing hedgerow along the boundary of the property and replacement with a new brick wall with integrated close board fence panels and brick pillar (1.8m high, 5.5m long).
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposal would cause material harm to the character and appearance of the area. This brings the scheme into conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations, which would outweigh the harm that I have found. Therefore, for the reasons given, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
4 October 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
for the construction of a new detached garage with annex in the roof space above.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the development having regard to the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I am therefore of the view that the proposal would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area. It would run contrary to Policy CP24 of the Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Core Strategy September 2007 and policy SQ1 of the Council's Managing Development and the Environment Development Plan Document 2010, which seek to which together seek to secure new development of acceptable scale and appearance. It would also be inconsistent with the National Planning Policy Framework which states that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2