New window and patio door/Juliet balcony to top flat

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 6 July 2026 by E Clifford BA (Hons) MA Decision by L C Hughes BA (Hons) MTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 7 August 2026. Appeal Ref: 6009338 10 Primley Park, Paignton, Torbay TQ3 3JR • 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 Raphael Lytton against the decision of Torbay Council. • The application Ref is P/2025/0711. • The development proposed is new window and patio door/Juliet balcony to top flat. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal Procedure 2. The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring property, 19 Clifton Gardens, with particular regard to privacy. Reasons for the Recommendation 4. The appeal site is part of a densely built-up area at the top of a hill, and the ground levels drop away significantly towards the Paignton coastline. As a result, there is a pre-existing level of overlooking that occurs naturally due to the change in topography and the positioning of houses. The neighbouring property, 19 Clifton Gardens (no 19), is positioned very close to the built form of the appeal dwelling, at a considerably lower level. 5. The appeal dwelling is a traditional dwelling house formed of two flats; the appeal centres on the top floor flat. An existing side window provides long ranging views across the town and the bay, as well as close range views of the gardens of the Clifton Gardens terrace, in particular the garden and patio area of no 19. 6. A certain amount of overlooking exists between the appeal site and no 19 as a result of the change in ground levels and the siting of the existing window . However, the proposed new openings in the side elevation of the appeal dwelling would significantly exacerbate the situation and cause a notable loss of privacy in all areas of the private rear space. The proposed reconfiguration of the internal space mean s that the window and Juliet balcony would serve habitable space within the appeal dwelling in which it is reasonable to expect the occupiers to spend a notable amount Appeal Decision 6009338 2 of time. This substantial increase in the perception of overlooking would therefore result in an unacceptable loss of privacy, causing harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. 7. The appellant has suggested that the current occupiers of no 19 would not have purchased their home if they had concerns about privacy and has further suggested that they as the current occupier of the appeal property, would not be interested in looking into the neighbouring garden. Regardless of whether this is the case, I must have consideration for the safeguarding of the living conditions of both current and future occupiers of the property as well as considering the life span of the proposed alterations and those who might occupy the appeal site in the future. 8. The appellant has further suggested that the appeal property was built prior to the construction of the terrace in Clifton Gardens , and thus any overlooking could not have been considered to be a serious issue when the terrace was built and granted planning permission. However, there is no evidence before me to determine the age of any of the relevant properties nor any details of planning permission, if it was required at the time. Furthermore, I can only consider the merits of the appeal scheme as it is before me, and the scheme in its current format would result in harm. 9. The proposed alterations would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of no 19, having particular regard to privacy. It would therefore fail to comply with Policy DE3 of the Torbay Local Plan 2012-2030 (2015), which states that all development should be designed to not unduly impact the amenity of neighbouring and surrounding users, including overlooking and privacy. It would further be contrary to the principles of the National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 135 regarding development having a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. Other Matters 10. A third-party representation has been made in relation to the effect on trees in the local area. As the proposal does not pertain to any trees and the Council have confirmed that there would not be any trees affected by the scheme, I have not considered this matter further. 11. Whilst the appellant has provided suggestions on how the scheme could be altered in order to reduce the harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring property, no drawings or firm details have been provided on the suggested modifications. Therefore, I have determined the appeal based on the submitted drawings and the merits of the scheme before me. 12. The appellant’s frustrations with the Council’s handling of the case are noted. However, this is a matter between the parties and is outside the remit of this appeal. I have only had regard to the planning merits of the case on the basis of the evidence before me. Conclusion and Recommendation 13. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. E Clifford Appeal Decision 6009338 3 APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 14. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. L C Hughes INSPECTOR