Conversion of loft to include increase of ridge height and installation of dormers to east (front) elevation and west (rear) elevation, including insertion of 2no

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 31 July 2026 by J Evans BA(Hons) AssocRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date:10 August 2026 Appeal Ref: 6011309 Blue Mist, Rawlyn Road, Torquay TQ2 6PQ • 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 Freeman against the decision of Torbay Council. • The application Ref is P/2026/0210. • The development proposed is described as Conversion of loft to include increase of ridge height and installation of dormers to east (front) elevation and west (rear) elevation, including insertion of 2no. rooflights to west (rear) elevation. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matter 2. I have used the description of the appeal proposal from the decision notice as I consider this better reflects the proposed development before me. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effects of the appeal proposal on the character and appearance of the appeal property (Blue Mist), the wider area, and heritage assets, namely upon the Chelston Conservation Area (the CA). Reasons 4. Blue Mist is located to the southern section of the CA. it is a detached bungalow and forms part of a group of three properties that are shown to post-date the Ordnance Survey Third Edition mapping from 1933. Although these properties are distinct in their own particular styles, they are comparable in terms of their mid C20 period of construction and reflective characteristics. Each of these properties are also set some distance away from the public highway to the east, with long front gardens and established landscaping between the built form of the properties and the highway. 5. Through the appeal paperwork I have been provided with a copy of the Chelston Conservation Area Appraisal (the CAA) from November 2005. Whilst this document does not form part of the development plan, the CAA states that it was adopted by the Council on 19 December 2005 and I consider it to be a useful and material document in the appraisal of the appeal proposals. 6. Blue Mist, together with the two similarly dated dwellings to the south, is not identified within the CAA as a key building or as part of a building group that Appeal Decision 6011309 2 provides architectural importance or makes a significant contribution to the townscape. From all that I observed during my site visit, I agree. Blue Mist makes a neutral contribution to the character and appearance of the CA. 7. The Council’s Officer Report explains that their concerns relate specifically to the effects of the proposed front dormer. The report raises no particular concerns about the proposed rear dormer window, the rooflights or the raising of the ridge height. This is also reflected in the decision notice. 8. From my site visit, I found that the effects of the proposed rear dormer window, the rooflights or the raising of the ridge height would be marginal as a result of the combination of the modest nature of the proposed alterations, and the restricted or more distanced views of the proposed changes from the surrounding area. I am therefore satisfied that these elements of the appeal proposal are acceptable. 9. Turning to the proposed front dormer window, the submitted plans indicate that this would run across the majority of the front roof slope. The dormer would be of a flat roof design set marginally below the proposed increased ridge height, and the lower end of the dormer would be positioned part way up the roof slope. The plans also indicate that the dormer would be finished in a composite cladding, the precise details of which could be secured via conditions. Double windows are proposed at either end, with a smaller single window centrally positioned. 10. Blue Mist occupies a sloping site that rises up from the public highway below, which is at a juncture where a number of the surrounding roads meet. The property is visible from these roads, but is viewed behind the garden landscaping in the foreground, with a rising treescape behind. The current roof slope, whilst evident, is not a dominate characteristic along the street scene. 11. However, the proposed front dormer window would result in a significant change to the bulk and massing of Blue Mist when viewed from the roads below. Its overall width, its box like form, visible extent of cladding, composite finish, and the positioning of the highest point of the dormer close to the ridge level would in combination result in an incongruous and domineering feature that would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area. 12. In reaching my conclusions, I acknowledge that the property next door has a single dormer window positioned centrally within its roof slope. However, this is not of the width, scale or massing of the proposal before me, and it reads as a more subservient feature to the roof form of that property. 13. Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, as amended (the LB & CA Act), relates to conservation areas and requires that special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area. These statutory requirements are reinforced through Policy SS10 of the Adopted Torbay Local Plan 2012-2030 (the TLP). 14. Paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (the Framework) says when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a heritage asset (including conservation areas), great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation (and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be). This is irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance. Paragraph 215 of the Framework explains that where a development proposal will Appeal Decision 6011309 3 lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of the heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. 15. For the reasons set out above, the appeal proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of Blue Mist and the wider area. Although Blue Mist currently makes a neutral contribution to the CA, due to the effects of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the property, the appeal proposal would also fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the CA. This harm would be less than substantial as defined by the Framework and therefore should be weighed against any public benefits of the proposal. 16. In support of the proposal, the appellant has raised a number of matters, and I have taken these into account. These include that the proposal would secure the beneficial adaptation and continued occupation of an existing dwelling; the efficient use of the existing building without extending its footprint; the ability for the dwelling to respond to changing household needs; and it would provide for improvements to the thermal performance of the existing property. 17. Nonetheless, whilst the above and wider matters are recognised, it is not clear to me why the proposal before me would be the only way of achieving these objectives and that a suitable alternative proposal could not be devised which provides the same or similar outcome, which is more sympathetic to the character and appearance of Blue Mist and its surroundings. 18. Overall, the harm that the proposal would have on the character and appearance of Blue Mist, the area, and the CA carries significant weight against a grant of planning permission. For the reasons I have explained, on balance, I consider that the harm caused by the proposal clearly outweighs any of the public benefits in this case. 19. Consequently, I find that the appeal proposal would conflict with Policy DE1 and SS10 of the TLP, Policy TH8 of the Adopted Torquay Neighbourhood Plan 2012- 2030 and Sections 12 and 16 of the Framework, which amongst other matters seek to ensure that development relates to the surrounding built environment in terms of scale, height and massing; integrates with the surrounding context; evolves high quality architectural detail; be of a good quality design; and preserves or enhances the distinctive character and appearance of the CA. Conclusions 20. The appeal proposal would have a detrimental effect on the character and appearance of Blue Mist and of the wider area, and it would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the CA. 21. As a result of these negative effects, the proposal is in my view unacceptable, and contrary to the development plan, when read as a whole. There are no material considerations that would justify a decision contrary to the provisions of the development plan, in this case. 22. For all of the above reasons, having regard to all matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. J Evans INSPECTOR