Loft conversion with rear flat roof dormer and a single velux window to front

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 2 September 2026 by J Evans BA(Hons) AssocRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 10 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6013855 41 Orkney Close, Torquay, Devon TQ2 7DS • 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 David Copping against the decision of Torbay Council. • The application Ref is P/2026/0106. • The development proposed is described as a loft conversion with rear flat roof dormer and a single velux window to front. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. I have used the description of the development from the decision notice as I consider this better reflects the proposal before me. 3. During the course of the appeal the revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published in August 2026. Both the Council and the Appellant were invited to submit comments, if appropriate, to the changes which form part of the revised Framework which have relevance to the appeal. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effects of the appeal proposal on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 5. The appeal property, 41 Orkney Close (No.41), is a modern two storey dwelling situated amongst similarly styled properties. It is located towards the end of a cul- de-sac, which connects via a footpath to another section of Orkney Close to the north. 6. The proposal seeks to undertake a loft conversion which would include a front rooflight and a rear dormer window. During my site visit, I could see the rear roof slope of No.41 from a number of transient vantage points between intervening built form along Orkney Close, alongside angled vantage points from the interconnecting footpath mentioned above, whereby the rear roof slope of No.41 is visible set behind the property No. 43 in the foreground. 7. It seems to me that in the context of the surrounding area, some adaptations to the rear roof slope maybe possible without appearing incongruous or out of place. Appeal Decision 6013855 2 However, the proposed dormer window would present as a large boxy addition that would occupy a significant area of the rear roof slope of No. 41. Due to its overall scale, size and massing it would represent a dominant addition to the roof structure and would unduly draw the eye from the sections of Orkney Close I have referred to above and from nearby rear gardens. Thus, it would appear as an incongruous feature in the context of its surroundings and would lead to harm to the character and appearance of the area. 8. Turning to the proposed velux window to the front roof slope, this would be barely discernible and would be reflective of other similar features on roof slopes in the surrounding area. I therefore do not have any specific objections to this element of the proposal. I have considered whether I could issue a split decision to allow this component, however it seems to me that the velux window is too integral to the broader components of the proposal for which I have raised objections to above. Therefore, I do not consider a split decision would be appropriate in this case. 9. Consequently, for the reasons I have set out above, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area and would conflict with Policies DE1 and DE5 of the Adopted Torbay Local Plan 2012-2030, Policy TH8 of the Adopted Torquay Neighbourhood Plan 2012-2030 and Sections 12 and 14 of the Framework, which amongst other matters, whilst seeking to make effective use of land require 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; respects local distinctiveness; and is visually attractive as a result of good architecture. Other Matters 10. In reaching my conclusions, I fully appreciate and acknowledge the appellant’s desire to stay within their existing property and their need to accommodate a growing household. However, it does seem to me that the proposal is not the only way such objectives could be achieved. But in any case, such justifications do not represent sufficient reasons to overcome the concerns I have identified to the character and appearance of the area. 11. The appellant has also referred to a dormer window at 12 Swallowfield Rise, Willows, Torquay. Whilst I do not know the full circumstances behind this case, from the limited information I have before me, I am not convinced that this would represent a particular example that should be repeated. But even so, this example is not evident in the immediate environs to the appeal site and ultimately, I am required to determine this appeal upon its own individual merits. Therefore, this case has not materially altered my conclusions upon the appeal proposal. 12. The appellant has also drawn my attention to a letter of approval from Cavanna Homes for a loft extension at No. 41, however the letter explains that it does not indicate their opinion as to whether a request for consent from appropriate local authorities would be successful or not. 13. The appellant has also raised a number of points relating to housing land supply issues in the area. Whilst this may be the case, housing land supply matters are not directly relevant to proposals for householder alterations such as the proposal, as such works would not lead to a net increase in housing units and would therefore not assist in increasing the overall housing land supply. Therefore, such matters do not materially affect the conclusions I have reached. Appeal Decision 6013855 3 Conclusions 14. For all of the above reasons, having regard to all matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. J Evans INSPECTOR