Simple front 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: 06 January 2026 Appeal Ref: 6000465 Crooked Barn, Fishley, A379 Fishley to Ashford Cross, Modbury, Devon PL21 0SX • 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 Carley Lamont against the decision of South Hams District Council. • The application Ref is 0793/25/HHO. • The development proposed is simple front porch. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the appeal building, having regard to Crooked Barn being a non- designated heritage asset (NDHA). Reasons 3. The appeal site consists of a converted detached stone barn positioned forward of a group of other former barns, all of which have similarly been adapted for residential use. The Council identifies the appeal building as an NDHA. The appellant does not dispute this, and on the basis of the evidence before me, I see no reason to reach a different view. 4. The appeal building is a modest and characterful structure, defined by simple proportions and a small overall scale. Although now in residential use, it retains the form and key characteristics of its agricultural origins. Its natural stone walls, slate roof and intact traditional profile all contribute to its significance as an NDHA. 5. The proposed porch would be added to the building’s principal elevation. Whilst I recognise the appellant’s rationale for seeking this extension, the porch would introduce an overtly domestic feature that is at odds with the building’s agricultural character. As noted above, the building’s significance derives from its retained form and features, and the introduction of a porch would erode the simplicity and uncluttered quality of the principal elevation, thereby causing harm to the significance of the NDHA. 6. Although there is some timber cladding within the gable ends of the side elevations, the building’s predominant materials are natural stone walls beneath a slate roof. The proposed porch, with its timber-clad walls, would not reflect this Appeal Decision 6000465 2 established material palette and would further compound the harm to the building’s historic integrity. 7. Although the building’s principal elevation is largely screened from the public realm by boundary fencing and gates, the proposed development would remain readily visible from within the appeal site. Moreover, both the Council’s policies and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) require development to demonstrate good design. I do not consider that the proposal meets that expectation. 8. By disrupting the building’s simple and uncluttered principal elevation, and by introducing a form and materials that conflict with its traditional character, the scheme would erode the building’s established appearance and rural qualities. Consistent with the Framework’s approach, I attach significant weight to this harm to an NDHA. 9. I recognise that the proposal would improve living conditions for the occupiers of the appeal building. Whilst I appreciate that the building’s limited floor area prevents the creation of an internal porch, it has not been demonstrated that no alternative solutions exist that would avoid harm to the building’s historic significance. I am therefore unable to conclude that the identified benefits outweigh the harm to the building’s historic integrity. 10. 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 Crooked Barn being an NDHA. Consequently, the proposal conflicts with Policies DEV20 and DEV21 of the Plymouth & South West Devon Joint Local Plan 2014 – 2034, which collectively seek good standards of design that contribute positively to the landscape and protect and improve the quality of the built environment, and to sustain the local character and distinctiveness of the area by conserving and, where appropriate, enhancing its historic environment, including both designated and non-designated heritage assets and their settings, according to their national and local significance. Other Matter 11. The appellant has drawn my attention to the Parish Council resolving to support the application. Nevertheless, I have considered the development on its merits based on all the evidence before me. Conclusion 12. 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