Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over highway safety in Tonbridge and Malling?
See which parking, gate and visibility facts inspectors used in the selected examples.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 6 of 65
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 1
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 5
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 6
- of 6 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
Tonbridge and Malling carport, gate and parking decisions
The selected examples do not show the same mix of allowed and dismissed outcomes as the matched local set. Dismissed reasoning is missing from part of it.
Counted against appeals
Carports, gates and parking concerns
A carport converted to a gym
The Inspector concluded that converting the carport to a home gym harmed highway safety and road safety locally.
Gate visibility and setback
The Inspector concluded that the gate and fence harmed road safety and traffic flow. The decision says the guidance requires adequate visibility and gates set back from the carriageway.
Cart-barn parking provision
The Inspector concluded that the cart-barn changes would harm highway safety through their parking provision.
Helped or needed
Parking that avoided street demand
Garages retained adequate parking
The Inspector concluded that the shared carports could become garages while leaving both homes with adequate parking.
No added street parking demand
The conclusion found no increased demand for on-street parking that would harm highway safety or the area.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify lost parking or a change of use?
- Are sight lines clear at your proposed entrance or gate?
- Can vehicles enter and leave without holding up traffic?
Because appeal 28353 also covered character and appearance, this review uses only its parking finding. 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
26 July 2022 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
the conversion of the existing double carport shared between 2 and [address] into two garages, by way of the following: 1) installation of a 60min fire rated wall to the apex of the roof, between the two carports. 2) the installation of white metal garage doors similar to others in the area. 3) the installation of a single timber access door to the side/rear of each garage to provide access to the gardens. Appeal B Ref: APP/H2265/D/22/3293914 [address], [site address] , [site address] Kent [postcode]
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in respect of [name] and B is the effect of the proposed development on the appeal property’s parking provision and whether as a result there would be an increased demand for on-street parking to the detriment of highway safety and the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude that Nos 2 and 3 would have adequate parking provision even considering the conversion of the carports to garages, and that this would not lead to an increased demand for on-street parking to the detriment of highway safety and the character and appearance of the area. Therefore, the proposals would not conflict with Policy SQ8 of the Managing Development and the Environment Development Plan Document and paragraph 111 of the National Planning Policy Framework; which jointly seek development to comply with parking standards and not significantly harm highway safety.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
12 May 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described on the planning application form as “Retrospective Planning Permission. I apologise and did not realise I had to get planning permission to carry out this work. I spoke to my neighbour and got their permission to enclose my car port to use as a gym for my health
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this appeal is the effect on highway safety.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
In these circumstances it is concluded that highway safety has been harmed and the absence of any on-street parking restrictions do not justify accepting such a detrimental development. I recognise the desire of the Appellant to have a home gym for health reasons but this has been achieved at the unacceptable expense of road safety in the locality. There is conflict with Managing Development and the Environment Development Plan Document Policy SQ8, which aims to prevent such adverse effects as well as seeking compliance with parking standards. Because of the unacceptable impact on highway safety there is also a failure to comply with Paragraph 116 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
19 May 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the erection of a site entrance gate and a fence panel.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the development on highway safety with regard to sight lines and the free flow of traffic.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Overall, I conclude that the development harms road safety and the free flow of traffic. This is contrary to Policy SQ8 of the Council’s MDEDPD 20101 where it requires development proposals to not significantly harm highway safety. It also conflicts with paragraphs 110 and 111 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which require developments to provide safe and suitable access to the site and to not have an unacceptable impact on highway safety. The proposal conflicts with the Kent County Council Vehicle Crossing Guidance and Self Assessment 2013 where it requires adequate visibility to be provided and gates to be set back from the edge of the carriageway on busy roads and with the [name] 2000 where it requires clear unobstructed vehicle visibility.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
16 May 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘proposed double storey side extension including single storey rear extension’.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area; and • the effect of the proposal on highway safety and the free flow of traffic.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Consequently, I conclude that the proposal would not harm highway safety and the free flow of traffic. It would comply with saved Policy P4/12 of the Local Plan and Policy SQ8 of the Managing Development and the Environment Development Plan Document 2010. Together, these require residential extensions to make adequate parking provision and to not significantly harm highway safety. It would also be in accordance with the Framework which requires the potential impacts of development on transport networks to be addressed.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 3
16 February 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
for a proposed roller shutter, side door and dividing wall to cart barn.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the development on: ⚫ highway safety with regard to the provision of parking; and ⚫ the character and appearance of the local area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
From the above and based on my observations, I am drawn to conclude that the proposal would result in harm to the highway safety with regard to the provision of parking. It would be contrary to policy CP24 of the Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Core Strategy September 2007 (CS) and policy SQ8 of the Council's Managing Development and the Environment Development Plan Document 2010 (DPD), which seek to provide parking in accordance with parking standards. The proposal is also inconsistent with the advice the National Planning Policy Framework which seeks to ensure development has an acceptable impact on highway safety.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2