Described in the application as “retrospective application: To remove one set of steps and part of front garden totalling 3m wide x 4m long to create one extra parking space. To make a hard standing of concrete with a retaining wall at the rear and to one side of the new parking space, the retaining wall is to be at the same level of the pathway around the principle elevation. Drop kerb to be installed to extend the existing drop kerb from the garage area

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 2 September 2025 by J Hills MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 11 September 2025 Appeal Ref: 6000472 44, Penwill Way, Torbay, Paignton TQ4 5JQ • 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 Mark Bennett against the decision of Torbay Council. • The application Ref is P/2024/0256. • The development proposed is described in the application as “retrospective application: To remove one set of steps and part of front garden totalling 3m wide x 4m long to create one extra parking space. To make a hard standing of concrete with a retaining wall at the rear and to one side of the new parking space, the retaining wall is to be at the same level of the pathway around the principle elevation. Drop kerb to be installed to extend the existing drop kerb from the garage area. Reposition existing railings to take into account extended parking area.” Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for alterations to front garden to create hardstanding parking space, removal of steps, and alterations to railings at 44, Penwill Way, Torbay, Paignton TQ4 5JQ in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P/2024/0256, and the plans submitted with it. Preliminary Matters 2. The application form states that work began in January 2024 and at the time of my visit I saw that the development was complete. It is noted that the application has been submitted retrospectively. I have dealt with the appeal on that basis and the plans before me. 3. The description of development provided within the application form and banner heading above is lengthy and includes wording that is not an act or description of development. To remove the superfluous, I have used a different description in the formal decision which is based on the Council’s decision notice. Main Issues 4. The main issues are the effect of the development on (i) the character and appearance of the area; and (ii) highway safety. Reasons Character and appearance 5. The appeal site is in an urban area and comprises a small bungalow on raised ground above its frontage below. This frontage adjoins a level pavement that meets a road and includes steps up to the property next to a planted stone walled terrace. While slightly narrower, this aspect of the development is similar to, and to a certain extent, more sympathetically designed than some other terracing found Appeal Decision 6000472 2 nearby. Its presence adds to the overall quality of the area, maintaining a locally recognisable characteristic. This is consistent with paragraphs 131 and 139 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). 6. The Council is concerned that significant excavation took place to facilitate what it considers to be a prominent parking area. However, between the sympathetic terracing and a rather stark, protruding flat roofed garage, is a relatively small area of new hardstanding. This would have required proportionate excavation of what previously included a further stepped access. The extended parking area is set in front of a rear wall of modest height, painted in a similar tone to much of the associated property and adjoining garage. It is below delicately designed and unobtrusive, narrow railings. Some trailing plants hang over the wall which has a softening effect. These features, together with the terracing, create an unassuming property frontage that relates well to the existing townscape. 7. Even if the numerous other local examples of frontage parking are unauthorised, the area is nevertheless characterised by these commonplace features with their varying degrees of prominence. In that context, the appeal site is most unlike the very steep frontage area of 2 Leyburn Grove near a particularly visible street corner that was the subject of dismissed appeals1. This scheme is of a very small scale and has been sensitively designed to integrate into the surrounding urban landscape. Although not advanced as a reason for refusal, the development accords with Policy PNP1(c) of the Paignton Neighbourhood Plan in this respect. 8. For the reasons given, I conclude on this main issue that the development does not have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. As such, there is no conflict with Policy DE1 of the Torbay Local Plan (LP) which says, in part, that development proposals should be uncluttered and attractive, acknowledge local character, using existing landform features that relate to the surrounding built environment. Highway Safety 9. There is no dispute that the length of hardstanding falls short of the guideline dimension requirements expected for new parking spaces set out in LP Policy TA3 and cross referenced in Appendix F. That said, and having paid regard to such guidelines, at my visit I saw 2 cars comfortably parked on the appeal site. Neither appeared to be cramped within their space or positioned so close to the rear wall that access to their boot area would be unduly compromised. Furthermore, despite the Council’s concerns, the front of both vehicles was set well back from the wide pavement’s edge. Although a smaller 4 door car was parked in the more restricted part of the hardstanding, it was typical of the type of vehicle found in this urban area. 10. Additionally, the increased width of the hardstanding provides good visibility for drivers of vehicles entering and exiting the appeal site. This is an improvement on the previous substandard layout where there was a more enclosed narrow space. Moreover, pedestrians using the footway have a largely unobstructed view of the parking area. Movements in and out of it would therefore be expected. Therefore, having paid regard to the Council’s Highways Design Guide and standing advice, the parking spaces are evidently suitable for a range of vehicles including cars, motorcycles, and bicycles. 1 APP/X1165/D/22/3309986 and APP/X1165/D/23/3324124 Appeal Decision 6000472 3 11. I therefore conclude on this main issue that the development is not likely to pose a risk to highway safety. As such, there is no conflict with the intentions of LP policies TA2 or TA3 which, together in this respect, and amongst other things, support the appropriate provision of parking spaces with a safe standard of vehicular and pedestrian access, without impacts on the wider network. A safe and suitable access, as required by paragraph 115 of the Framework, is also achieved. Other Matter 12. The Council has not suggested the inclusion of any conditions. Given the nature of the development and the fact that it has already taken place, I do not consider any conditions to be necessary. Conclusion 13. For the reasons given, the appeal should succeed. J Hills INSPECTOR