North Devon District Council appeal evidence
Refused over area character and appearance in North Devon?
See source-linked local examples to compare with the character-and-appearance reason in your refusal.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 23 of 31
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 9
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 14
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 8
- of 23 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: North Devon LPA (51.049208, −3.934393). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
North Devon District Council appeal findings
North Devon carports, garages and coastal landscape
Appeal 90333 is edge-of-scope: its conclusion treated character and appearance as neutral, not a dismissal reason.
Counted against appeals
Carport and coastal landscape objections
Oak carport found harmful
For the oak-framed carport, the Inspector concluded that it would harm the area’s character and appearance.
Self-build harmed scenic beauty
The Inspector concluded the self-build dwelling would harm the area, including the North Devon Coast National Landscape’s scenic beauty.
Helped or needed
Garage design and caravan boundary space
No outdoor-space condition was needed
Most fenced space lay outside the red-line site, with little room for outdoor space inside it.
Lower, planted garage avoided dominance
Excavation set the garage below road view, alongside proposed planting, lower height and sympathetic materials. It did not visually dominate the dwelling.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does your refusal identify a specific character or landscape harm?
- Does it address your garage’s height, road visibility, planting or nearby buildings?
- Does it say outdoor space falls outside the red-line boundary?
The selected examples range from the carport in appeal 85277 to rural worker accommodation in appeal 90625. 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
2 examples
18 June 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
for retention of caravan accommodation with rural enterprise workers' tie for a temporary trial period, and associated agricultural building works.
Issue identified by the Inspector
In light of the Preliminary and Agreed Matters above, the main issues are: • whether there is an essential operational need for a temporary mobile home to accommodate rural workers living permanently at the appeal site; and, • the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
However, at the site visit, I noted that the vast majority of the fenced outdoor space provided falls outside of the red-line site. As such, it does not form part of the plans and development before me. Furthermore, given that the red-line is drawn tightly around the caravan accommodation, access and other buildings, I saw at my site visit that there is little room for outdoor space within the red-line site. Given this, there is no need for me to include a condition requiring the submission of details of outdoor space within the red-line site and there would be no associated harm to the character and appearance of the area from this.
Paragraph 52 · Source page 8
9 June 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
proposed change of use of land to extend domestic curtilage for erection of new garage, minor amendment to house design to allow internal garage to change to games room and associated works.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • whether the development is in an appropriate location with particular regard to the local policies concerned with development in rural areas; and, • the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
The enlargement of the curtilage to provide the garage is minimal in size and does not comprise valuable agricultural land. Moreover, the excavation of the site to set the garage level down is not highly visible from the road with replacement planting proposed to mitigate any losses, even acknowledging that the photomontage is indicative only. In light of this, and given that the design of the garage with regard to the proposed materials are sympathetic to the dwelling and given that it would be reduced in height by a further 0.5m, I do not find that the scale and mass of the garage visually dominates the dwelling or causes harm to the character and appearance of the area. This is particularly the case given that the development is viewed in association with the nearby dwelling of comparable scale.
Paragraph 16 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
3 March 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
oak framed carport.
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 that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. As such, there would be conflict with NDP policies BE1 and BE4, as well as policies DM04, DM25, and ST04 of the [name] and Torridge Local Plan. Collectively, and amongst other things, these policies support development that responds and is sympathetic to site characteristics in terms of form, setting and layout appearance.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
24 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the demolition of equestrian buildings and erection of a local needs self-build dwelling and associated landscaping.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: (i) the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, including the scenic beauty of the North Devon Coast National Landscape; and (ii) whether the proposed development would be in a suitable location, taking account of the Council’s spatial strategy and access to services and facilities.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
On that basis, I conclude that the proposed development would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area, including the scenic beauty of the NL. It would therefore conflict with Policies ST14 and DM08A of the [name] and Torridge Local Plan, 2011 – 2031 (the LP), as well as Policy BE5 of the Georgeham Parish Neighbourhood Plan (the NP). Taken together, the relevant aspects of these policies seek to ensure that new development is well designed and that it preserves landscape character, including that of the NL. 1 Appeal ref: APP/X1118/W/22/3304360
Paragraph 11 · Source page 2
12 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
residential development for the erection of two dwellings and associated works.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: (i) whether the proposed development would be in a suitable location, taking account of the Council’s spatial strategy; (ii) whether the proposed development would make efficient use of land; and (iii) the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I have also concluded that there would be harm in relation to the inefficient use of land. Again, this issue is referred to within the wording of paragraph 11(d)(ii) of the Framework. The lack of harm associated with character and appearance is a neutral factor within my decision.
Paragraph 19 · Source page 4