7 residential apartments at Singleton Gardens, Torquay

What was proposed

The application sought seven apartments in a four-storey block, with revised access, ten parking spaces, landscaping and associated works.

“Description of Development The proposal seeks permission for the formation of seven apartments with a modified access and associated parking provision and landscaping.”

“The proposals would block up the existing vehicular access with a stone wall and will form a new gated vehicular and pedestrian access from Meadfoot Sea Road adjacent to the existing access. The existing southern boundary wall adjacent to Meadfoot Sea Road will be demolished and rebuilt in stone. The proposal will retain the existing north, east and western boundary walls. The site would provide a total of 10no. on-site parking spaces; 3no. within the courtyard, and 7no.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is residential curtilage within the Lincombes Conservation Area, beside listed buildings, with stone boundary walls, trees and land rising northwards.

“In terms of the site which is the subject of this application, the site is enclosed by stone and rendered boundary walls. The land rises to the north towards Lincombe Drive, with a copse of trees set above the northern extremity of the site boundary. To the north-west of the site are two large villas (Singleton and Meadfoot Lodge) with extensive grounds and directly to the north west is Meadville which is a modern building in use as flats.”

“The site is located within an existing residential area, is designated as Flood Zone 1, is situated within the Lincombes Conservation Area and is subject to Area Tree Protection Order (1973.001).”

Officer report

Earlier applications and enforcement

Earlier schemes were refused or dismissed on appeal, while enforcement required reconstruction of the dwelling and reinstatement of a stone wall.

“- Appeal APP/X1165/W/25/3375118 dismissed on 21/01/2026 against the non- validation/determination of the application by the LPA. This appeal related solely to the basis that the proposal was submitted via an incorrect application type and did not relate to planning merit.”

“The works to partially demolish the stone wall in the approximate location identified by a green line on the attached plan titled “Map 2” has resulted in the unjustified loss of historic fabric and has diluted the positive impact of the stone boundary wall to the historic character of the street and the wider conservation area.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because moderate housing and other public benefits outweighed the assessed minor heritage harm and policy conflict.

“I find that when the harm to the significance of the above noted heritage assets is weighed with the public benefits this issue is more evenly balanced than was evidently found by the LPA when it determined the application. However, the concern that I have identified above in respect of the likely impact upon a high quality tree within the LCA, tips the heritage balance against an approval.”

“The Council cannot currently demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply, as sought by Government, and the proposal will help with the delivery of housing. Paragraph 11 of the NPPF outlines that decisions should apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Local Plan policies SS3, SS13 and H1 also place importance on maintaining five year housing supply.”

Officer report

What people said

About 31 objections and 25 supporting letters were received, covering heritage, openness, design, access, trees, drainage, housing and public benefits.

“- Eyesore - Trees - Ecology - Demolished dwelling should be re-built - Conflicts with national and local policy - Planning history and appeals - Impact on heritage, Conservation Area and listed buildings - Impact on open aspect - Impact on streetscene - Curtilage listed - Size, massing and scale - Loss of open space - Materials - Design, visual appearance and beauty - Officer approach and bias - Separation of the site and salami slicing - Lack of public benefit - Future use…”

“- Housing need - Provides houses - Addressed appeal comments - Reduced and more appropriate level of development - Design - Impact on Conservation Area - Good internal layouts - Garden space - Parking provision - Sustainable location - Improve appearance of area - Supports local economy - Improves local amenity - Energy efficient homes - Parking - Improves safety and accessibility - Impact on trees addressed - Heritage impacts - Existing streetscene and precedents -…”

Officer report

Who spoke at the meeting

Two people and a neighbourhood forum representative spoke against the application, Councillor Foster spoke against it, and two people spoke in support.

Information before the committee

Members had visited the site, and the Planning Officer reported four additional representations and no objection from the Waste Officer.

“Prior to the meeting, Members of the Planning Committee undertook a site visit and written representations were available on the Council’s website.”

“At the meeting, the Planning Officer advised, that since the committee report and update report had been published, four additional letters of representation had been received but these raised no new material issues that had not already been covered in the submitted committee report and update report. A consultation response had been received from the Council’s Waste Officer with no objection to the application due to the location of a bin storage being identified.”

Minutes

The committee’s resolution

The committee resolved that it was minded to approve the application, subject to conditions and delegated matters.

“1) the conditions as outlined in the submitted report with the final drafting of conditions delegated to the Divisional Director of Place Strategy;”

“2) the resolution of any new material considerations that may come to light following Planning Committee to be delegated to the Divisional Director of Place Strategy, including the addition of any necessary further planning conditions or obligations; and…”

Minutes

What was decided

Approval was subject to the reported conditions, resolving new material considerations and confirmation that the application could be approved and would not be called in.

“3) confirmation from The Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government that the application can be approved by the Council, if the Council has not, in the interim, having considered the merits of the application, decided to refuse the application and that the application will not be called in for determination by the Secretary of State.”

Minutes