Torridge District Council appeal evidence
Refused over character and appearance in Torridge?
Learn which character-and-appearance points to check against your refusal notice.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 12 of 25
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 3
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 9
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 4
- of 12 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: Torridge LPA (50.887442, −4.250743). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Torridge District Council appeal findings
Torridge form, massing and scale concerns
The allowed selected example gives only a conclusion, not its design details. The selected examples have a different mix of allowed and dismissed appeals from the matched local set.
Counted against appeals
Torridge character concerns in dismissed proposals
Scale, height and building relationships
After finding harm to the area, the inspector cited policies seeking design appropriate and sympathetic to its setting in scale, height, fenestration and relationship to buildings.
Overall form and massing
Timber cladding and vertical openings were welcomed, but overall form and massing, and their relationship to the immediate surroundings, led to the harm finding.
First-floor extension and surroundings
The inspector concluded that the first-floor extension would harm the host property and its surroundings. The extract gives no further design analysis.
Helped or needed
Allowed forestry building: conclusion only
Appropriate location, no harmful effect
The inspector found the location appropriate for the forestry building and found no harmful effect on area character and appearance. The extract does not state what details led to that conclusion.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal notice identify problems with scale, height, windows or building relationships?
- Does the refusal notice explain how overall form and massing affect immediate surroundings?
- Does the refusal notice say whether your proposal harms your property, the wider area or both?
The allowed forestry-building extract states a conclusion but not the assessment behind it. 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
1 example
9 June 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
application for erection of forestry building for storage/workshop and welfare area.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether the appeal site is an appropriate location for the development with particular regard to the local development strategy, including the effect on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
It follows from the above that the appeal site is an appropriate location for the development with particular regard to the local development strategy and does not have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. As such, the development complies with [name] ST04, ST07 and DM14, the aims of which I have outlined above. For the same reasons, I find that the development complies with the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework with regard to supporting a prosperous rural economy and achieving well designed places.
Paragraph 15 · Source pages 3, 4
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
27 February 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
dwelling and the provision of 5 car parking spaces to serve [site address] .
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the reasons given, the proposed development would have an unacceptably harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. As such, there would be conflict with policies ST04 and DM04 of the [name] and Torridge Local Plan, which, together in this respect, seek to promote good design that is appropriate and sympathetic to setting in terms of scale, height, fenestration, and relationship to buildings.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
7 June 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
2 storey side extension and single storey rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Therefore, I conclude on this main issue that the proposal would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. As such, the proposed development would be in conflict with policies DM04, ST04 and DM25 of the LP which together in this respect seek to promote developments that are appropriate and sympathetic in to the character and appearance of the area. There would also be conflict with chapter 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework which, amongst other things, says that decisions should ensure that developments are visually attractive and sympathetic to local character, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
11 April 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as Removal and creation of new roof extension to create a third floor and the addition of a balcony to dwelling and ground floor home office including hard and soft landscaping (Affecting a Public Right of Way).
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effects of the appeal proposals on the character and appearance of the appeal property and the wider area.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I do accept there are a number of positives with the design approach, I welcome the introduction of more vertical openings, and the use of recessive materials such as the timber cladding. I also do not have any particular objection to an innovative design approach to the appeal site. However, ultimately it is the overall form and massing of the proposals, and the relationship of such with the specific characteristics and immediate surroundings to the appeal site, that leads me to conclude that the appeal proposals would result in harm to the character and appearance of the appeal property, and that of the wider area.
Paragraph 19 · Source page 4
29 July 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as the removal of approved loft conversion application number 1/0373/2024/FUL and construction of a new first-floor extension over approved single storey side extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and its surroundings.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude that the proposed development would harm the character the character and appearance of the host property and its surroundings. Accordingly, a material conflict arises with those provisions of policies ST04, DM04 & DM24 of the [name] and Torridge Local Plan promoting the achievement of a high standard of design in new development and ensuring that in residential extensions the design should respect existing development, its context, setting and surroundings.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2