Torbay Council appeal evidence
Refused over neighbour living conditions in Torbay?
See which neighbour-living-condition conclusions appear in selected Torbay appeal examples and which facts to compare with your refusal.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 50 of 138
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 18
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 31
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 39
- of 50 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: Torbay LPA (50.440621, −3.530223). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Torbay Council appeal findings
Rear decking, outlook and privacy
The selected dismissed examples are conclusion-only and concern hubs or adverts alongside other issues; they do not say why the appeals failed on neighbour living conditions.
Counted against appeals
Dismissal reason absent from neighbour extracts
No neighbour harm is stated
Each extract concludes the hub would have an acceptable effect on neighbouring occupiers, but does not state what led to dismissal.
Helped or needed
Rear decking: outlook and privacy
Outlook and privacy maintained
For the raised rear deck, the inspector concluded that outlook and privacy were maintained.
No unacceptable neighbour harm
For the garage conversion and raised decking, the inspector concluded that neighbours’ living conditions would not suffer unacceptable harm.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify a specific loss of outlook or privacy?
- Do your drawings show how a rear deck affects neighbouring windows or gardens?
- Does the refusal give a separate reason beyond neighbours’ living conditions?
The selected dismissed examples are multi-issue hub-and-advert cases, with no stated neighbour-harm reason for dismissal. 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
2 examples
29 July 2022 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
for a raised deck to the rear of property.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of 6 and [address] with particular regard to outlook and privacy.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Accordingly, the proposal is in accordance with Policy DE3 of the Torbay Local Plan - Plan for Torbay: 2012-2030, in so far as the proposal maintains living conditions, with specific regard to outlook and privacy.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 2
15 September 2021 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
described as extension and conversion of existing garage to form bedroom, formation of raised decking to rear.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the development on the living conditions of the occupants of 75 and [address] with regard to privacy.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the reasons set out above I conclude that the development would not cause any unacceptable harm to the living conditions of occupants of Nos 75 and 79. The development would therefore comply with Policy DE3 of the Torbay Local Plan 2012-2030, which requires that development should not unduly impact upon the amenity of neighbouring and surrounding uses.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
11 May 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the installation of 1no. [address] Hub and removal of associated BT payphones.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues with respect to Appeal A are the effect of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the area, including the conservation area; • crime safety; • the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers; and • climate change.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore find that, in relation to Appeal A, the proposed [address] Hub would have an acceptable effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, and in relation to Appeal B, the proposed advertisements would have an acceptable effect on amenity. No conflict would arise with Policy DE3 of the Local Plan which seeks to ensure that all development should be designed to provide a good level of amenity for future residents or occupiers and should not unduly impact upon the amenity of neighbouring and surrounding uses.
Paragraph 28 · Source page 5
11 May 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the installation of 1no. [address] Hub and removal of associated BT payphones.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues with respect to Appeal A are the effect of the proposed development on: Appeal Decisions 6003922, 6003923 • the character and appearance of the area; • crime safety; • the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers; and • climate change.
Paragraph 5 · Source pages 1, 2
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore find that, in relation to Appeal A, the proposed [address] Hub would have an acceptable effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, and in relation to Appeal B, the proposed advertisements would have an acceptable effect on amenity. No conflict would arise with Policy DE3 of the Local Plan which seeks to ensure that all development should be designed to provide a good level of amenity for future residents or occupiers and should not unduly impact upon the amenity of neighbouring and surrounding uses.
Paragraph 19 · Source page 4
11 May 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the installation of 1no. [address] Hub and removal of associated BT payphones.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues with respect to Appeal A are the effect of the proposed development on: Appeal Decisions 6003893, 6003897 • the character and appearance of the area; • crime safety; • the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers; and • climate change.
Paragraph 5 · Source pages 1, 2
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore find that, in relation to Appeal A, the proposed [address] Hub would have an acceptable effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, and in relation to Appeal B, the proposed advertisements would have an acceptable effect on amenity. No conflict would arise with Policy DE3 of the Local Plan which seeks to ensure that all development should be designed to provide a good level of amenity for future residents or occupiers and should not unduly impact upon the amenity of neighbouring and surrounding uses.
Paragraph 21 · Source page 4