Appeal 3324124
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
7 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
No verified development description has been extracted from an official decision PDF yet.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Preliminary Matters
The parking space has been constructed. However, in order to conform with the approved plans, part of the previous terraced rockery area would need to be re-instated and planting boxes installed. The development is therefore part retrospective.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 05
Reasons
The appeal site is located in a predominantly residential area. Due to the topography of the surroundings, many of the homes nearby are set back slightly above street level with sloping rockery style gardens to the front. These front garden spaces add greenery to the street scene and make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area.
No. [site address] is situated in a reasonably prominent location, close to the junction with [address]. A large proportion of the terraced rockery has been removed and a fairly wide parking area has been constructed. At present, the tall rendered walls are stark and obvious and the parking area appears as an incongruous and unattractive feature in the street scene.
The proposal before me would reduce the width of the parking area by re-introducing part of the sloping garden terrace, while planting boxes with trailing foliage would be installed at the top of the front facing wall. While that would soften the visual impact of the parking area to some degree, the tall vertical walls would still be a visually dominant feature in the street scene and would continue to look quite jarring and out of keeping when compared to the attractive sloping garden that was there previously. Therefore, even when completed, the harm caused to the character and appearance of the area would be clear.
Other off-road parking spaces have been constructed nearby. However, this has largely occurred where dwellings do not have substantially raised gardens, meaning that the installation of high vertical walls has not been necessary. Those developments are therefore not comparable to the scheme before me.
I therefore conclude that the development conflicts with Policy DE1 of the Torbay Local Plan 2012 to 2030 which, in part, requires development to be well designed and to take account of local character.
Section 06
Other Matters
[name] acknowledge that the provision of an off-road parking space would be beneficial to the occupiers of No. 2 and their neighbours, this does not overcome the clear harm that I have identified.
Section 07
Conclusion
The proposed development conflicts with the development plan when considered as a whole and there are no material considerations, either individually or in combination, that outweigh the identified harm and associated development plan conflict. The appeal is therefore 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 4753No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 10 October 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 5 September 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3324124
- Application reference
- P/2023/0260
- 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
- Unknown
- 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
- 0 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
- 14 June 2023
- Valid date
- 14 June 2023
- Start date
- 26 July 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 4 May 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 10 October 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
- 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
- 40018
- 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