Appeal 6001090

The appeals are dismissed.

The development / works have already been undertaken.

[site address] is a grade II listed building1 within the East Devon National Landscape2(NL). The appeal site also lies within the setting of the grade II listed building known as [name] with its adjoining stable block.

The two main issues are: firstly, whether the development / works preserve the features of special architectural or historic interest which [site address] possesses, as well as preserving the setting of [name] (appeals A and B) and; secondly, the effect upon the character and appearance of this part of the NL (appeal A only).

The development plan includes the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 (LP). My attention has been drawn to various policies and strategies. The most important 1 Listed as [name]. The provisions of sections 16(2) and 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) are engaged. 2 The provisions of section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (as amended) are engaged. Appeal Decisions 6001090 and 6000978 policies / strategies to the determination of appeal A3 are EN9 (designated heritage assets) and Strategy 46 (landscape conservation and enhancement).

Whilst not part of the development plan, my attention has also been drawn to the Blackdown Hills AONB Management Plan (MP) and the [name] for Houses 2012 (DG). I understand that the current MP covers the period 2025-2030 (MP)4. The MP and DG can be given moderate weight.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) is also an important material consideration that carries considerable weight5. First Main Issue – [site address] / Setting of [name] ([name] and B)

The heritage interest (significance) of [site address] , which dates from the mid- 16th century6, is primarily derived from its special architectural and historic qualities. These include its simple, almost oblong shaped 3-room-and-through-passage plan, local stone and flint rubble walls, stone rubble stacks, gable-ended and hipped shaped roof, oak plank-and-muntin screen and fireplace. Although much altered over time, this building is a pleasing example of a traditional / vernacular (former) farmhouse that runs parallel to the highway and sits harmoniously on the southern slope of [address].

The significance of the neighbouring [name], which dates from the 16th century and its late 17th-early 18th century stable block, is also primarily derived from its special architectural and historic qualities. These include the stone, flint and cob walls, the slate roof on the farmhouse and corrugated roof to the stable block, the 3-room-and-through passage plan of the farmhouse, chimney stacks and window arrangement.

Although separated by the public road, [site address] and [name] form a pleasing group of traditional buildings within this part of the [name]. The vernacular qualities and former use of [site address] in association with agricultural activities contribute to an appreciation and understanding of the historic landscape setting of [name] and its stable block.

The replacement extension (sun room) has been added to the roadside elevation of [site address] . Due to the gradient of the land and boundary vegetation / walls, only parts of the extension can be seen from the public highway. However, public views are not necessarily determinative when assessing the impact of works / development upon the significance of listed buildings.

Although the sun room is modest in scale, it projects a significant distance7 from the main roadside wall of the former farmhouse. This new addition disrupts and distracts from the simple oblong shaped plan of [site address] and its shallow pitched roof contrasts awkwardly with the roof slope on this listed building. In addition, the timber clad walls contrast sharply with the painted rendered walls of the main building. Over time, the cladding may fade to a more muted silver/grey colour. However, the sun room would still appear as a discordant addition to this 3 Whilst the provisions of section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 are not engaged in respect of appeal B, policies relating to designated heritage assets are a material consideration in determining that appeal. 4 Amongst other things, the MP identifies the special qualities of this NL. These include a landscape with architectural appeal, where the vernacular character is particularly well preserved with buildings fitting naturally into their surroundings. 5 The draft Framework was published for consultation in December 2025. At this stage, it carries very limited weight. 6 Major improvements were undertaken in the later 16th century and 17th century, with some demolition in the 19th century and renovation works undertaken in about 1980. 7 The submitted plans specify a distance of 3.826 metres. Appeal Decisions 6001090 and 6000978 vernacular building. This new extension erodes / detracts from the significance and pleasing vernacular qualities of this designated heritage asset. It harms the character and appearance of [site address] .

In the context of the Framework, the development / works comprise less than substantial harm to the significance of the listed building. If there is a sliding scale within this category of harm, the impact of the sun room would be near a mid-point. However, this does not amount to a less than substantial planning objection. Great weight should be given to conserving designated heritage assets. The harm that I have identified above weighs heavily against granting permission / consent.

The sun room replaced an earlier extension. Whilst the previous extension was not a thing of beauty, it did not extend so far from the main (roadside) wall of the listed building and its lean-to roof was a more comfortable fit. The size and design of this previous extension was materially different to the new sun room. The planning status of this earlier extension is also somewhat unclear to me.

In determining these appeals, I am required to weigh the less than substantial harm that I have identified with any public benefits. In this regard, I note the appellant’s arguments that the sun room provides improved living conditions, which helps to maintain the building’s functionality and promotes environmental responsibility by incorporating sustainable materials. However, it is very far from certain that this listed building would be unable to function effectively without this sun room or that another more appropriately designed extension could not be undertaken that also incorporated sustainable materials. These claimed public benefits are insufficient to outweigh the harm that I have found above.

In eroding the vernacular qualities of [site address] , the sun room diminishes, to a very limited extent, the contribution this listed building makes to the historic landscape setting of [name] and its adjoining stable block. This adds a modicum of weight to the LPA’s argument for withholding permission / consent.

I conclude on the first main issue that the development / works fail to preserve the features of special architectural or historic interest of [site address] , as well as failing to preserve the setting of [name]. There is conflict with the objectives of LP policy EN9.

I note from the DG that buildings of the [name] are an integral part of the patchwork of beauty and heritage which makes the area so special. Traditional buildings, including [site address] and [name], are an essential and distinctive part of this nationally important landscape.

The sun room, by virtue of its inappropriate design, fails to respect the character and appearance of the original building. It comprises an inharmonious addition to the listed building and detracts from the contribution that this important building makes to the special landscape qualities of the area. I am mindful that the extension is not unduly prominent when seen from the public realm and the extent of harm to the character and appearance of this part of the NL is limited. Nevertheless, there is conflict with the objectives of [name] 46, the MP and the DG. This adds weight to the argument for withholding planning permission. Appeal Decisions 6001090 and 6000978

I conclude on the second main issue that the development harms the character and appearance of this part of the NL.

[site address] and [name] are of special interest and are situated within a landscape that is recognised as being of national importance. Given my findings above in respect of the harm to the significance of these buildings and to the character and appearance of the landscape, I conclude that these appeals should not succeed.