Appeal 3363117
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
4 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
the formation of a garage and parking space.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the formation of a garage and parking space at [site address] , Torbay, [postcode] , in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/2024/0796, and subject to the following conditions:
The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.
The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match or complement those used in the existing buildings on the site.
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out only in accordance with following approved plans: [name] extract Location Plan dated 15.11.2024 2001 A.D.125 [name] dated 01.12.2024 P2024-0796-1 [name] dated 27.12.2022 P2024-0796-2 [name] dated 27.12.2022 P2024-0796-3 [name] dated 31.10.2021 P2024-0796-4 [name] dated 31.12.2022 P2024-0796-5 [name] dated 31.10.2021
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect the proposed development would have on the character and appearance of the appeal site frontage in the context of the local street scene.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal site is situated on the north side of [address] where the street frontage is characterised by frequent and varied modifications to property frontages to facilitate off-street parking. Invariably, these comprise paved spaces of rather stark appearance at the rear of the footway excavated into the sloping ground and surrounded by retaining walls.
The original approach in the design of the appeal proposal is to excavate further into the site frontage and create a low-level, virtually subterranean garage under a green sedum roof, and placing an area of hardstanding behind the front boundary wall, in effect replacing much of the area of the front garden that would be disturbed.
I appreciate the concern of the Council that, despite the insertion of parking bays along the [address] frontage, the original sloping gardens with softening vegetation and side driveways and garages have generally been retained and that this aspect of the street scene would be disrupted by the appeal development.
On the other hand, whilst the garage would still stand somewhat taller than the front boundary wall, the garage and hardstanding would be contained within the site, avoiding the exposed and unrelieved paved area immediately behind the footway which is a feature of many the nearby properties.
Thus, whilst the design of the appeal proposal is certainly different from the more orthodox solutions used elsewhere along [address] and in the wider area, in my judgement the development would not appear unduly incongruous or uncharacteristic in the context of the wider, varied street scene. Moreover, there is some prospect that the side and front boundaries to the site could be reinforced by new planting, as indicated on the submitted plans, which would further soften the appearance of the frontage.
I agree with the Council that the examples of existing frontage car parking arrangements in [address], quoted in support of the appeal, are not necessarily directly comparable and may not have been authorised. I also agree that a previous appeal allowing car parking at a property in [address], some distance away, is not directly relevant, as the details of development and the topography of the site are substantially different. So, whilst acknowledging that the Council has refused several previous proposals at the appeal site more comparable with the present scheme but with sliding security gates, I have considered the present case on its individual merits and in current circumstances.
For the reasons explained, I consider that the proposed development would comply with Policy DE1 of the adopted Torbay Local Plan as well as with Policy PNP1(c) of the made Paignton Neighbourhood Plan which, together, consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework, require development to be well designed to respect its surroundings. I therefore consider the proposal to be compliant with development plan as a whole and conclude that this appeal should be allowed, subject only to standard conditions.
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 1576No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 27 May 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 9 May 2025 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3363117
- Application reference
- P/2024/0796
- 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
- Not recorded
- 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
- Allowed
- Decision category
- Allowed
- Received date
- 27 March 2025
- Valid date
- 7 April 2025
- Start date
- 7 April 2025
- Planning authority decision date
- 21 January 2025
- Appeal decision date
- 27 May 2025
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
- 70064
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:28
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21