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 worksOne-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.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
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.
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.
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