Mid Devon District Council appeal evidence
Refused over character and appearance in Mid Devon?
See the selected examples’ concerns and the limited detail in the allowed extension extract.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 9 of 15
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 5
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 4
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 6
- of 9 matched records
AI-assisted. Cited sources and wording were checked before publication. Based on 5 source-linked examples shown below. Review method and limits.
Planning Data area point: Mid Devon LPA (50.87669, −3.555654). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Mid Devon District Council appeal findings
What harmed Mid Devon’s character and appearance
The allowed extract gives only its conclusion, so it does not show the design details behind it; a dismissed extract also covers a conservation area.
Counted against appeals
Mid Devon character and appearance harm
Significant harm to area character
A residential proposal was concluded to have a significantly harmful effect on the area’s character and appearance.
Conflict with design requirements
The extension was found to conflict with policies seeking a high-quality design that respects its site and surroundings through scale, layout, siting, character and appearance.
Benefits did not outweigh harm
For an extension affecting a conservation area, limited public benefits were not sufficient to outweigh identified harm.
Helped or needed
Mid Devon extension said to accord
No design reasons in extract
The Inspector concluded that the extension accorded with the host dwelling and wider area. The selected extract does not say why.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify harm to the building, wider area or both?
- Which scale, layout or siting details does the refusal say conflict?
- Could claimed benefits be achieved without the refused proposal?
The conservation-area example also concerns heritage, and the allowed extract gives no design reasons. These decisions do not predict another result.
Appeal evidence examples
Compare allowed and dismissed appeal reasoning
Each example separates the development, the Inspector-stated issue that selected it, and the reasoning from the decision. Compare the facts as well as the outcome: these examples do not predict how a different proposal would be decided.
Allowed appeal examples
1 example
13 January 2023 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a single storey extension on the north side of the property. The construction will be in keeping with the existing property using London bricks, concrete roof tiles, and white UPVC for the windows and doors.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in the appeal is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and wider area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Overall, for the reasons set out above, I conclude that the proposal would accord with the character and appearance of the host dwelling and wider area.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
5 May 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as “this application seeks planning permission for the residential development of 2no. dwellings at [name], [site address] ”.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore conclude on the main issue that the proposal would have a significantly harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. As such, there would be conflict with policies S9, S14, and DM1 of the Mid Devon Local Plan, which together in this respect, and amongst other things, seek to sustain the distinctive character of [name] environment, where new development should demonstrate a clear understanding of the characteristics of the site, making efficient use of land.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
30 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the demolition of existing barn with Class Q approval and proposed new build dwelling in its place.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, taking account of the legitimate fallback position.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposed development would result in harm to character and appearance and would therefore conflict with the development plan when considered as a whole. The proposal would not result in a net increase in the number of dwellings when taking account of the fallback position and would also not make more efficient use of land. There could be some benefits in terms of the creation of an energy efficient and sustainable dwelling. However, given the scale of the proposal, any such benefits are likely to be very limited. In addition, any enhancements to landscaping or biodiversity could be achieved without allowing this appeal.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
7 April 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as a single storey extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effects of the appeal proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the wider area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
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.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
2 June 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
Proposed erection of a single storey front and side extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effects of the appeal proposal on the character and appearance of the area and on heritage assets, namely the [site address] Conservation Area (the CA).
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the above reasons, the appeal proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the appeal building and the wider area. The appeal proposal also fails to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the CA. This harm would be less than substantial as defined by the Framework and therefore should be weighed against any public benefits of the proposal. However, any public benefits that would arise from what is a householder proposal would be limited and would not be sufficient to outweigh the clear harm that I have identified.
Paragraph 14 · Source page 3