Creation of a single storey extension to the rear of the main house with associated internal alterations and new canopy porch

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 19 November 2025 by K Reeves BA (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 02 January 2026 Appeal Ref: 6000462 3 Elston Park, Millstone Cottage, Lane to Elston House, Churchstow, Devon TQ7 3QS • The appeal is made under Section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Simon Hacking against the decision of South Hams District Council. • The application Ref is 0535/25/HHO. • The development proposed is creation of a single storey extension to the rear of the main house with associated internal alterations and new canopy porch. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matter 2. Internal alterations and the canopy porch referenced in the description of development are not cited in the refusal reason. My decision therefore concerns only the proposed rear extension. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the appeal building and the wider area, having regard to Millstone Cottage being a non-designated heritage asset (NDHA). Reasons 4. The appeal site comprises a converted semi-detached stone barn within a cluster of former farmstead buildings. Despite its residential use, the group retains a coherent agricultural character. The appeal building is modest in scale, constructed of natural stone under a slate roof, and displays the simple vernacular proportions typical of rural barns in the South Hams. 5. The appellant contends that the building’s individual significance as an NDHA is limited and derives mainly from age and group value. Whilst its significance is modest in national terms, its simple, balanced form, restrained massing and traditional materials contribute positively to local distinctiveness and to the historic character of the former farmstead. These qualities underpin its significance as an NDHA. 6. The proposed extension is designed to be subservient, set back from the corner and kept below eaves level to preserve the building’s legibility. Nevertheless, it would still disrupt the building’s simple, modest and compact proportions, which Appeal Decision 6000462 2 are central to its historic character. Moreover, the additional massing would dilute its agricultural form and weaken the clarity of the original structure. 7. I acknowledge that the South Hams District Council Barn Guide (2004) supports contemporary additions where they remain subordinate, avoid mimicking historic forms, and may employ modern materials. However, the Guide also requires such additions to respond sensitively to the host building’s character. Here, the proposed timber cladding and zinc roof would introduce a distinctly modern palette that contrasts sharply with the building’s traditional stone and slate. Combined with the increased massing, the extension would appear visually discordant rather than a respectful evolution of the building’s agricultural character. 8. I accept that public visibility of the proposal would be limited. However, heritage impact is not determined solely by public views. The extension would be clearly perceptible from within the site and neighbouring properties, where the building’s simple rear elevation currently contributes to the group’s agricultural coherence. Limited visibility does not lessen the harm arising from the erosion of the building’s modest form, traditional character and material integrity. 9. Although the proposal would not remove the NDHA, the extension would nonetheless diminish its significance. By eroding the building’s simple agricultural form, increasing its massing and introducing materials that do not integrate with its vernacular character, the scheme would undermine the building’s established rural qualities. This would, in turn, harm the NDHA’s significance and historic integrity. 10. Policy DEV21 of the Plymouth & South West Devon Joint Local Plan 2014 – 2034 (JLP) requires development affecting heritage assets to conserve their significance and respond positively to local character. For NDHAs, a balanced judgement is required, having regard to the scale of harm and the asset’s significance. I have found that the proposal would harm the significance of the NDHA, and this harm carries significant weight. 11. The appellant refers to Policy TTV29 of the JLP, noting that the extension represents a 38% increase in floorspace, below the 50% threshold. Whilst this may indicate that the scale is acceptable in general residential terms, Policy TTV29 does not override the heritage-specific requirements of Policy DEV21. Compliance with Policy TTV29 does not negate the identified harm to the NDHA. 12. The appellant highlights existing domestic interventions within the building group, including solar panels and rooflights. I acknowledge these features. However, these additions have not materially altered the fundamental proportions of the converted barns in the way the proposed extension would. The presence of other domestic features does not justify further erosion of the group’s agricultural character. 13. The appellant has also provided several examples of converted barn extensions approved by the Council, including at 5 Elston Park, The Dairy, The Threshing Barn, Alston Well, and High Barn. I have reviewed the extracts provided. However, I do not have the full policy context, site circumstances, or heritage assessments for those cases. Moreover, some appear to have been determined under earlier policy frameworks. Without full information, I cannot conclude that they are directly comparable. In any event, planning decisions must be made on their own merits. The existence of other extensions does not justify development that would cause harm in this case. Appeal Decision 6000462 3 14. For these reasons, the proposal would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the appeal building and the wider area, having regard to Millstone Cottage being a NDHA. Consequently, the proposal conflicts with Policy DEV21 of the JLP, which seeks to sustain the local character and distinctiveness of the area by conserving, and where appropriate enhancing, its historic environment, both designated and non-designated heritage assets and their settings, according to their national and local significance. Conclusion 15. For the reasons given above, the proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Accordingly, the appeal should be dismissed. K Reeves INSPECTOR