Development proposed are raising the eaves of the east slope of the north wing extension to improve access to the second bedroom

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 20 May 2026 by Samuel Watson BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 11th June 2026 Appeal A Ref: 6001910 Briarcroft, North Bovey TQ13 8QZ • 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 Dai & Debbie Jenkin against the decision of Dartmoor National Park Authority. • The application Ref is 0297/25. • The development proposed are raising the eaves of the east slope of the north wing extension to improve access to the second bedroom. Appeal B Ref: 6001911 Briarcroft, North Bovey TQ13 8QZ • The appeal is made under section 20 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant listed building consent. • The appeal is made by Dai & Debbie Jenkin against the decision of Dartmoor National Park Authority. • The application Ref is 0298/25. • The works proposed are raising the eaves of the east slope of the roof of the extension of the north wing to improve access to the second bedroom. Decision Appeal A 1. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal B 2. The appeal is dismissed and listed building consent is refused for raising the eaves of the east slope of the roof of the extension of the north wing to improve access to the second bedroom. Preliminary Matters 3. As the appeal relates to a listed building consent, I have taken sections 16(2), 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) into account. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the Grade II listed Briarcroft Clifton Cottage (List Entry No 1334238) and the North Bovey Conservation Area, as well as any features of special architectural or historic interest they possess. Appeal Decision 6001910 2 Reasons 5. Briarcroft Clifton Cottage is a vernacular building originating from the late 17th century. It is constructed of rubble and cob walls that have been rendered and whitewashed. The building is primarily served by a thatched roof while a small outshut is topped by a slate roof. The building has been altered through its history, having first started as a single dwelling facing away from the village and then having been subdivided and extended. The building now comprises of Briarcroft and Clifton Cottage. Briarcroft faces towards the village and includes a kitchen wing that was added in the 18th or 19th century and that was further extended by a single-storey element in the 20th century. It is this 20th century element that would be affected by the proposal. 6. I understand that the building had been built as a cross-passage dwelling and that its subdivision has somewhat eroded the legibility of this original plan form. However, its former use as a single dwelling is still clear from outside the dwelling. I am also aware that in the building’s more recent history a fire destroyed the roof structure, the internals of the building and the upper parts of the external walls. I understand that during the reconstruction works the 20th century element was increased in height to accommodate a room on the first floor. 7. The significance of this building derives, at least in part, from its age, the extent to which its vernacular design, materials and form are still legible, and its relationship to the wider village. Although mindful of the building’s part reconstruction, it still makes an important contribution to the interest and significance of the surrounding area, the North Bovey Conservation Area (the CA). 8. The CA is a small area that covers the greater portion of North Bovey, a small village set within an agricultural landscape. Development clusters around the village green and adjoining church and is served by narrow lanes. Thatch rooves and white-washed walls, whether rendered or not, dominate the village and the primarily long and low vernacular style of building creates a pleasant and traditional village scene. Although the village has medieval origins it has accommodated modest but continual change through the replacement and re-use of existing, and the erection of new, buildings. The significance of this conservation area stems in part from the number of historic buildings present and the extent to which the village’s historic form and its connection with the rural landscape are still intact. 9. As noted above, the kitchen wing is formed of two elements, the first attaches directly to the dwelling and affords two full-height floors. The second, or 20th century, part is that which had previously only accommodated one floor but now, following its rebuilding, provides two floors. However, and as I experienced on site, due to its shorter height access to the first-floor room was difficult. Currently the building retains a visual hierarchy between the main house, the kitchen wing and the 20th century projection off this. 10. The proposal would see the eastern slope of the 20th century element raised so that the eaves would be higher than those of the kitchen wing. Currently, the outrigger is served by asymmetrical rooves. Both elements have lower eaves on the eastern side than on the western. The proposal would result in the affected eaves being higher than both the existing eastern and western eaves. Appeal Decision 6001910 3 11. I am mindful that it is only a modest alteration but, taken in the whole, it would result the kitchen wing and 20th century extension appearing tantamount to one continuous projection. Therefore, this change in the building’s roofscape would obfuscate the hierarchy of the building’s elements as well as how it has changed over time. This would also consequently affect the legibility of the building’s cross- passage form as a result. I am mindful that there is a degree of irregularity within the roofscapes through the village. However I have not been directed to, nor did I see during my visit, any rooves comparable to the proposal before me. While the rooves at Chancery Cottage have been brought to my attention these appear to be two separate dwellings set perpendicular to each other and, as such, a different situation to that before me. 12. As noted above the listed building currently makes a positive contribution to the conservation area. The proposal would be visible from a number of locations within the CA including a public right of way across the nearby field and a road to the east of the site. The harm identified above would not only be visible within the CA but also erode the contribution the host building makes to it. As such, although only to a very modest degree, the proposal would also be detriment to the appreciation of the conservation area, a designated heritage asset. 13. I am mindful that there are a number of other listed buildings1 within the wider area that are viewed in relation to the appeal site. However, I am content, given the distance and relationship between them, that the proposal would not distract from the appreciation of these buildings or adversely affect their historic interest and significance. The proposal would consequently have a neutral impact on these assets. 14. Nevertheless, in light of the above, and given the scale of the proposal, I find that a low degree of less than substantial harm to the significance of the designated heritage assets would occur. Although less than substantial, considerable importance and weight should be given to any asset’s conservation. Paragraph 215 of the Framework advises that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. 15. As the proposal would improve access to the second bedroom, it would improve the quality of housing stock in this area. Moreover, there would be some small and time-limited economic benefits during the construction phase. Collectively these would be public benefits resulting from the proposal. 16. However, as the building is already in use as a dwelling, the proposal would not secure its optimum viable use or materially change the effectiveness of the land’s use. It would also not affect the occupier’s access to services and open spaces. Likewise, given my findings above, there would be no benefits stemming from the appearance of the scheme or its contribution to the built and historic environment. It has also not been demonstrated that the proposal would improve biodiversity, minimise waste and pollution or mitigate for, and adapt to, climate change. 17. I am mindful that alternative options have been raised by the Authority which have the potential to achieve the above public benefits without the identified harm. I find that it has not been suitably demonstrated that these alternatives would not be viable options. Consequently, and given the small scale of the proposal I afford 1 Church of St John the Baptist (Grade I); Chancery Cottage Church Gate Cottage Stone Cross (Grade II); The Old Post Office, Ivy Cottage and Ingrik (Row of Cottages at South-east Corner of Green) (Grade II) Appeal Decision 6001910 4 these public benefits only very modest weight which, in the circumstances of this case, do not outweigh the harm to the designated heritage assets. 18. In all, the proposal would unacceptably harm the historic interest and significance of Briarcroft Clifton Cottage and the North Bovey Conservation Area, designated heritage assets. No public benefits have been identified that outweigh this harm, so the proposal conflicts with Policies 1.1, 1.2, 1.5, 2.7 and 3.7 of the Dartmoor Local Plan 2018-2036. These collectively, and amongst other matters, seek for proposals to be of a high quality that conserves the significance of historic and cultural features and respects Dartmoor’s vernacular with particular regard to the use of designated heritage assets. Conclusion 19. The proposal would harm designated heritage assets and would conflict with the development plan taken as a whole. There are no material considerations, including the National Planning Policy Framework, which indicate the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, for the reasons given, I conclude that both appeals A and B are dismissed. Samuel Watson INSPECTOR