West Devon Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over character and appearance in West Devon?
See how planting, scale and siting affected selected West Devon appeal decisions.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 26 of 34
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 10
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 15
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 22
- of 26 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: West Devon LPA (50.696807, −4.100961). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
West Devon Borough Council appeal findings
Planting, massing and rural appearance in West Devon
The selected examples include the 6004868 farm track; 3275633 supplies only a dismissal conclusion.
Counted against appeals
Where extensions harmed local character
The extension harmed the area
In 3275633, the Inspector concluded the rear extension would harm the area’s character and appearance. The extract does not give the detailed basis.
Helped or needed
Planting and siting reduced visual impact
Boundaries screened a larger bungalow
In 3341811, the chalet bungalow stayed set back behind retained hedgerows and trees. Recessive materials and boundary landscaping supported its rural appearance.
Planting obscured bulk at distance
In 3320793, mature boundary planting and long viewing distances meant the rear extension’s massing and bulk were not easily readable.
A farm track matched agricultural activity
In 6004868, the track’s scale, nature, siting and appearance caused negligible harm and related to typical agricultural activity.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal notice identify harmful bulk, scale or siting?
- Does it say planting fails to screen public views?
- Does it raise materials or boundary landscaping?
The 6004868 farm-track example is less comparable with a refused home extension. 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
3 examples
18 June 2024 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
described as renovations and extensions of existing bungalow into a two storey chalet bungalow.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effects of the development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Nonetheless, the proposal would still remain set back within the site allowing for the retention of the established natural landscaping along the site boundaries. Thereby the proposal would be perceived with hedgerows, trees and landscaping in the foreground and surrounding the site. As a result, the increase in massing and scale would not appear unduly imposing from the public vantage points within the surrounding area. Therefore, subject to the use of recessive finishes to the external materials to be used, so as to ensure the appearance of the proposal would reflect the rural characteristics of the surroundings, alongside securing an appropriate landscaping scheme to manage and reinforce the natural boundaries at the site, I am satisfied that the proposal would appropriately assimilate into context. It would not appear uncharacteristic or visually intrusive over wide areas.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
9 November 2023 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a rear extension to the existing dwelling to comprise a ground floor garage and living accommodation on the first floor.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host building and the surrounding area.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Despite being on elevated land within the surrounding landscape, there is substantial mature planting along parts of the boundaries of the site. Positions within the landscape where the extension is viewable through the planting are a long distance from the site. Furthermore, the planting around the site results in the massing and bulk of the extension not being easily readable. I am therefore satisfied that there is no material harm to the landscape character and appearance. Additionally, the extension’s position on the rear of the dwelling, the orientation of the dwelling and the distance of the site from DNP means that it is not overtly visible from the protected landscape or its setting. Material harm to the setting of DNP has therefore not occurred as a result of the development.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 3
11 June 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
installation of a permeable farm track.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in the appeal is the effects of the farm track on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
As would be a consequence of any development that changes part of the natural landscape to an engineered feature, there would be some degree of effect on landscape character and visual quality. However, owing to its scale, nature, siting, and related appearance, the harm would be negligible, justified by, and associated with activities typically undertaken within an agricultural setting. As such, the proposal does not raise conflict with, in particular, policies DEV20, DEV23 and TTV26 of the Plymouth and South West Devon Joint Local Plan (adopted 2019). Amongst other things, these policies seek to ensure development respects scenic quality and has proper regard for the pattern of local development and the wider development context and surroundings. 1 [name] and West Devon Landscape Character Assessment, LUC (2018)
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
2 examples
29 September 2021 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
1 and 2 storey extension to rear.
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
This leads me to conclude that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area. Of the policies quoted by the Council, Policies TTV29 and DEV21 of the Local Plan3 are of particular relevance. Policy TTV29 requires extensions to be appropriate to the design and setting of the host dwelling, 2 National Planning Policy Framework, July 2021. 3 Plymouth and South West Devon Joint Local Plan 2014 - 2034 whereas Policy DEV21 seeks to sustain local distinctiveness by conserving non-designated heritage assets and their settings. The proposal would conflict with the objectives of both of these polices.
Paragraph 12 · Source pages 2, 3
16 September 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
for a two storey side extension to dwelling.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The Joint Local Plan Supplementary Planning Document (2020) (SPD) provides guidance on the design of side extensions to avoid over-dominating the existing house or street-scene in paragraphs 13.37 to 13.39. The front of the extension would be set behind the existing front elevation, and the ridge height would be lower than the existing ridge height. Therefore, in this regard the proposal would be subordinate to the host and would accord with the guidance set out in the SPD.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 1