For a single storey side extension to provide bedroom and bathing facilities to allow ongoing independent living
📊
See the success rate & inspector analytics
Free to view — just create an account, no payment needed.
Sign Up FreeTechnical Issues Heatmap
Heritage & Conservation
Character & Appearance
Extensions
Inspector’s Reasoning
Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 10 February 2025
by Mr C J Tivey BSc (Hons) BPl MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 19th February 2025
Appeal Ref: APP/X1165/D/24/3354540
Thornhill Brake, Seaway Lane, Torquay TQ2 6PW
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)
against a refusal to grant planning permission.
• The appeal is made by Mr & Mrs Simon Greening against the decision of Torbay Council.
• The application Ref is P/2024/0404.
• The development proposed is for a single storey side extension to provide bedroom and bathing
facilities to allow ongoing independent living.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Preliminary Matter
2. Since the planning application the subject of this appeal was determined a new
version of the National Planning Policy Framework (the ‘Framework’) has been
published (12 December 2024) and consequently amended on 7 February 2025.
There has been no material change to national planning policy in respect of
householder appeals and therefore I consider that it was not necessary to refer
back to the parties. I have determined the appeal on this basis.
Main Issue
3. The main issue is the effect of the appeal proposal upon the character and
appearance of the host dwelling, identified as a ‘key building’ (a non-designated
heritage asset) and whether the scheme would preserve or enhance the character
or appearance of the Conservation Area.
Reasons
4. The appeal site is located within a verdant single-track lane bounded by high
Devon hedges interspersed with gateways into generally large detached properties
set in generous grounds.
5. Thornhill Brake is a fine red stone villa conserved to a high standard and with its
principal elevation being quite striking in the street scene. It has been extended
sensitively in the past.
6. The proposed extension would be constructed on the eastern elevation of the main
range which is presently characterised by a pair of full-height windows at ground
floor level and a pair of shallower windows over at first floor level, providing well
balanced fenestration. The dwelling enjoys a high degree of articulation and the
Appeal Decision APP/X1165/D/24/3354540
2
flank steps in, with a semi-exposed chimney stack within a further two storey rear
projection.
7. The Chelston Conservation Area Character Appraisal (CACA) highlights that there
are well over 100 villas either detached, semi-detached or in mirrored terraces of
three within the Conservation Area and like Thornhill Brake most retain period
features and relatively few have had disfiguring extensions; they are therefore
central to the overall character of the Conservation Area. It goes on to state that,
although unlisted, these are the Conservation Area and make a significant
contribution to the wider Torquay Townscape, to which I wholeheartedly agree.
8. I fully understand the appellants’ reasoning behind the proposal, who clearly wish
to remain in their home for as long as practicably possible. However, with respect,
the occupation of dwellings is ultimately transitory whilst the physical effects of
proposal are permanent.
9. I note that the design of the proposed extension would be single storey in nature
and therefore in many ways would appear subordinate to the host dwelling.
However it would go a considerable way in masking the existing well-balanced
eastern elevation, causing the obscuration of the aforementioned historic ground
floor openings and with a faux pitched roof that would, in part, conceal the bottom
portions of the first floor windows above.
10. I acknowledge that the windows and the glazing pattern would largely mirror those
on the existing house, however, the original features would no longer be read as
part and parcel of the overall architecture of the property and furthermore the use of
aluminium windows and doors would run counter to the timber joinery found
elsewhere on the property. The 3D images provided identify the house being in red
brick as opposed to red stone and whilst clearly there is some small scale red brick
detailing on the house presently, in the form of plinths and chimney stacks, brick is
not the predominant external finishing material. Notwithstanding this, I consider that
the red shaded render of the proposed extension would dilute the overall aesthetics
and design quality of the key building.
11. Therefore whilst I acknowledge that the use of certain heritage-compatible
materials, particularly for the roof glazing, does demonstrate a commitment to
conserving the area’s unique aesthetic, I am not convinced that the proposal would
preserve that, although I have been given no reason to doubt that the extension
would be thermally efficient. However, the very fact that the dwelling has been
altered in the past does not mean that any further additions are acceptable carte
blanche.
12. I accept that no near neighbours are either overlooked by or can look into the site;
as a result there would be no detrimental impact to any surrounding property, but
whilst the principal elevation is the only one visible to third parties using Seaway
Lane, nonetheless the considerations of this appeal go beyond that.
13. I find that the scheme would give rise to less than substantial harm to both the
designated and non-designated heritage assets notwithstanding that I consider that
the extension would not give rise to an overdevelopment of the site. However,
there are no public benefits that outweigh the less than substantial harm that I have
identified and consequently the proposal would fail to preserve the character and
appearance of the Conservation Area.
Appeal Decision APP/X1165/D/24/3354540
3
14. Overall, I consider that the siting, scale, design and use of materials would erode
the character of the key building. For these reasons I find the proposal contrary to
Policies DE1, DE5 and SS10 of the Torbay Local Plan and Policy TH8 of the
Torquay Neighbourhood Plan which together require development to be well-
designed, respecting and enhancing Torbay’s special qualities including the
character of the built environment, including areas and buildings of historic interest,
by ensuring that all designated and non-designated heritage assets are sustained
and enhanced and respect the local character in terms of height, scale and bulk
and reflect the identity of its surroundings.
Conclusion
15. Having regard to the above and all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal
be dismissed.
C J Tivey
INSPECTOR
Expert Representation
Don't leave your appeal to chance.
Inspectors are inconsistent. We build a technical defense using precedents from our 182,000+ case archive.
No win, no fee Householder representation — you only pay if you win.