Appeal 3303776
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
replacement conservatory.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the St Marychurch Conservation Area
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal site is one of four large villas identified in the St Marychurch Conservation Area Appraisal (2005) as making a significant contribution to the townscape because of their architectural importance. Features of importance noted in the appraisal and found on the appeal property include its symmetrical frontage, hipped roofs, projecting front gable, sash windows, and panelled front doors recessed behind a classical porch. Three of the villas, including the appeal property, are set behind a stone wall with mature trees along its length which limit views of them to gaps in the vegetation and at the driveway entrances.
The conservatory that would be replaced is substantial. It sits on a base and comprises 2 bays either side of a recessed central section with doors opening out onto steps down to the garden. Although it is not an original structure it is an attractive addition that complements the building, albeit it needs some repair. Its wooden frame has some fine details which cannot not be properly replicated in a PVC structure, including arched window bars, finials on the end of the bay roof ridges and architrave detailing. The proposed PVC replacement would lack the sympathetic materials and quality of design of the existing conservatory and would therefore harm the appearance of the building and thus the CA. I note that PVC windows are prevalent within the area, such as on the flats that back onto [site address] close to the appeal site and on older terraced housing further along the road. However, as noted above, the appeal property is identified as being important to the CA despite being mostly screened from public view.
Given the small scale of the development within the context of the CA as a whole, it would not harm its character. There would however be harm in terms of its appearance. The harm would be limited and thus less than substantial but would nevertheless be contrary to Policies DE1 and SS10 of the Torbay Local Plan 2012-2030 (2015) (LP) and Policy TH8 of the Torquay Neighbourhood Plan (2019) (NP) which seek good quality development that conserves or enhances the character and appearance of Conservation Areas.
Any harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset requires justification and, in accordance with paragraph 202 of the National Planning Policy Framework, I must weigh the harm against the public benefits of the proposal. There would be modest benefits arising from the improved energy performance of the structure. However, such benefits would not outweigh the harm to the appearance of the area and consequently the CA.
Section 05
Conclusion
For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be 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 128No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 24 October 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 27 September 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3303776
- Application reference
- P/2022/0470
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Torbay Council
- Planning authority code
- E06000027
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
- 20 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
- 25 July 2022
- Valid date
- 25 July 2022
- Start date
- 30 August 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 14 June 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 24 October 2022
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
- 22411
- 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