Appeal 3321291
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
6 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
raising of ridge height and dormer roof extensions to create 2 additional bedrooms in the roof space, alterations to front porch and alterations to fenestration.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
[name]
The application was amended through the submission of revised drawings to which I have had regard in my decision. These removed an originally proposed dormer extension to the south-east elevation of the property.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 05
Reasons
[address] is a residential street with a significant gradient, rising fairly steeply approximately east to west. The appeal property is a detached, single-storey dwelling. In common with most others along [address], it is built to take advantage of the slope with an integral garage below ground floor level. The proposal would include the addition of living accommodation within the roofspace by raising the ridge height, changing the roof pitch, and adding a dormer window to the north-west elevation.
No 163 is one of three similar gable fronted properties in a row that are built in an echelon formation (Nos 161-165 odd). As a group, they appear uniform and regimented within the street scene. Moreover, I saw this to be a strong feature more widely in the area. Despite the variety of house styles, there is a pleasing rhythm and cohesion to the vista along this part of [address] that is derived from pockets of consistent building types and sizes which appear complementary to each other as they incrementally step up the slope of the land at uniform intervals and heights.
The raising of the ridge at No 163, creating a steeper roof pitch and larger roof plane, would significantly alter the scale and bulk of the property. Due to the topography of the area and the visual exposure of the dwelling, especially when looking up the slope of [address], the remodelled proportions of the property would appear out of keeping and disruptive to the harmony and cohesion of the group. By so doing, it would stand out as an obvious and incongruous change that would be harmful to the established character and distinctive pattern of development more widely.
By failing to relate well to its surroundings and by having an adverse effect upon the character of the street scene, there would be conflict with Policies DE1 and DE5 of the Torbay Local Plan 2012-2030, and with Policy PNP1(c) of the Paignton Neighbourhood Plan 2012-2030, adopted in June 2019. For these same reasons there would also be conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework’s objectives for achieving well-designed places.
Section 06
Conclusion
For the reasons given, I find that the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. Accordingly, and having regard to all other matters raised, 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 286No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 6 July 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 21 June 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3321291
- Application reference
- P/2022/1346
- 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
- 133 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
- 30 April 2023
- Valid date
- 30 April 2023
- Start date
- 12 May 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 18 April 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 6 July 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
- No
- 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
- 35220
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:27
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21