Skip to main content
Official casework recordDismissedCurrent release

Appeal 6004493

Public case and site metadata stored from the official casework database, including fields that were empty in the source release.

A clearer next step

See how Inspectors approached issues like yours

Bring your planning decision into a private workspace. We separate the disputed points, then match them with source-located Inspector reasoning from similar appeals.

  • See which issues the decision appears to turn on
  • Compare the facts and open the full appeal records

One private comparison

How the refusal review works

One-off service · No subscription

Similar appeals are evidence to inspect, not a prediction of your outcome.

Official decision document

The decision, section by section

5 sections

Read the development description and the Inspector’s text from the official decision PDF in source order. Source headings are retained where available. Personal and contact details are removed by an automated privacy filter; this is source material, not Rules for You analysis.

Section 01

Development description

described as a single storey extension.

  1. Section 02

    Decision

    The appeal is dismissed.

  2. Section 03

    Main Issue

    The main issue is the effects of the appeal proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the wider area.

  3. Section 04

    Reasons

    [site address] forms part of a residential conversion of former agricultural buildings understood to have taken place to the latter part of the C201. The buildings are located in an attractive rural context, and the conversion works have been executed well, whereby the traditional vernacular and historic use of [site address] and the wider context remain evident.

    From the observations I made during my site visit, it seems to me that the elevation on which the extension would be proposed, irrespective of its role now or historically, is an attractive one. [name] accept that the adaptive re-use of the building has resulted in some changes, alongside associated domestic activity, the distinctive character of [site address] as a former traditional rural building is still clear, as a result of such matters as the simple and functional elevations, the irregularity of the openings, the solid to void ratio, the modest building form and overall outward appearance.

    Whilst the proposal would be single storey only, it would run for a large expanse of the elevation upon which it is proposed, it would step out some distance from it, and would appear bulky in its overall appearance and the context of the main building. The positive characteristics of [site address] referred to above would become overwhelmed as a result. 1 89/00096/FULL

    Further, through the proposed design approach, including the large expanse of glazing, the regularity of the openings, and the lantern lights to the roof, the proposal would result in an overtly domestic appearance, which would run contrary to the prevailing characteristics of the main building.

    For these reasons, I do not consider that the proposed extension would compliment the character and appearance of [site address] , it would detract from it. The core components of the traditional vernacular of the building as observed from within the garden of the property and from some sections of the adjacent rural lane, would be harmed.

    In reaching my conclusions, I acknowledge that there may have been a larger more modern addition on this elevation historically, but as I understand it, this was removed through the original conversion works. I also accept that the role and purpose of the elevations may have changed over time and through the adaptive re-use. Further, during my site visit, I also observed other buildings and recent developments in the surrounding area. However, whilst taking into account all of the above, these matters do not change how I assess the effects of the proposal upon character and appearance, none of these matters have resulted in me reaching differing conclusions on the proposal.

    Overall, I find that the appeal proposal would conflict with Policies S1, DM1 and DM11 of the Mid Devon Local Plan 2013-2033 and Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024, which amongst other matters seek to ensure that development is of a high quality that respects the site and its surroundings through its scale, layout, siting, character and appearance.

  4. Section 05

    Conclusions

    The appeal proposal would have a detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the application building and the wider area.

    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.

    For all of the above reasons, having regard to all matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.

Planning inspector and document dates

The official casework attribution is grouped under a one-way keyed hash and shown only by its local identifier. Decision-letter dates and page references are extracted by fixed first-page rules and checked against that authoritative record.

  • Appeal Decision

    Extracted inspector · page 1
    Inspector attribution ID 4127No official casework-database value to compare
    Extracted decision date · page 1
    7 April 2026Matches the official casework database
    Extracted site visit dates
    25 March 2026 (page 1)

Reference and authority

Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.

Case reference
6004493
Application reference
25/01269/HOUSE
Lead case reference
Not recorded
Planning authority
Mid Devon District Council
Planning authority code
E07000042

Casework details

The casework, procedure, development and linking details supplied by the official record.

Casework type
Householder (HAS)
Procedure
Written Representations
Development type
Householder developments
Appeal type reason
Not recorded
Appeal reason
refused
Type detail
Householder
Jurisdiction
No Jurisdiction Associated
Link status
Not recorded

Site and development

Published appeal-site measurements and planning designations, without the withheld precise location fields.

Site area
0 hectares
Floor space
2,845 m²
Number of residences
Not recorded
Site in Green Belt
No
Agricultural holding
Not recorded
Affects setting of a listed building
Yes
Historic building grant made
Not recorded
Relates to a conservation area
Not recorded
Flooding is an issue
Not recorded
Site within an AONB
Not recorded
Site within an SSSI
Not recorded

Decision and dates

The published outcome and every imported case date.

Official decision
Dismissed
Decision category
Dismissed
Received date
2 February 2026
Valid date
2 February 2026
Start date
5 February 2026
Planning authority decision date
17 November 2025
Appeal decision date
7 April 2026

Case administration

Published recovery, call-in, costs and enforcement information for this case.

Redetermined
Not recorded
Bespoke
Not recorded
Date recovered
Not recorded
Date not recovered or derecovered
Not recorded
Call-in date
Not recorded
Costs applied for
No
Enforcement grounds count
Not recorded
Enforcement grounds
Not recorded

Source and catalogue history

When this record appeared in the rolling official release and when the catalogue stored it.

Source
Planning Inspectorate casework database
Source data system
Back Office
Dataset status
Current release
Catalogue record ID
87066
First seen
20 August 2026 at 14:25
Last seen
20 August 2026 at 16:29
Removed from release
Not recorded
Record created
20 August 2026 at 14:25
Record updated
24 August 2026 at 16:21