The sign, the driveway
and the unanswered planning questions.

The photograph shows a blunt message beside a timber summerhouse: “KEEP OUT” and “NO PLANNING”. On 15 September 2026, the estate agent handling the property reported: “Unfortunately, this put the first viewers off.” For the family trying to sell, a planning dispute was no longer confined to correspondence. It was confronting prospective purchasers at the property.

Mr J says a neighbour confirmed Mark John Mayo’s involvement in the signs on Saturday, and that the family’s security cameras recorded him putting up signs outside the front of the property. The family alleges deliberate interference with the sale. This account was supplied on 18 September 2026; the original footage, precise date and neighbour’s account are the next records to examine. The supplied photograph also shows a smaller sheet whose text is not legible enough to authenticate. Miss E is arranging a close photograph so its wording, author and status can be checked. TP09 · Agent’s email and photograph

Was any part of this display issued or authorised by Torridge District Council—or is it a private statement about planning? That question remains open. The date of the agent’s email is not an established date of installation. No new Council notice has yet been authenticated in this review.

The agent’s report supplies evidence of an effect on viewers. Mr J identifies a neighbour’s account and camera footage as evidence of who put up signs. Mr Mayo is asked directly to address the allegation of deliberate sale obstruction and identify the basis for the planning statements displayed. Whether the smaller sheet came from the Council remains a separate question.

The shed: what the record actually says.

Mr J describes a temporary timber garden shed used for tools and equipment and sometimes as a summer sitting space, not a separate dwelling. He says it has no water connection or bathroom. The family contrasts the attention given to it with the treatment of larger neighbouring works.

Mr J reports receiving verbal reassurance twice: first during a telephone call with someone in the planning department, and then during a site visit by an officer he identifies as Grant. He says he showed Grant the proposed position behind the house, Grant took photographs and indicated that the location was not a problem. Mr J understood this as confirmation that the officer had no objection. The call and visit dates and the officer’s own records are being sought.

The Council also gave written advice. On 12 April 2024, conservation officer Sarah Chappell said installation of the proposed shed would require planning permission within the grounds of a listed building. The earlier account of a visiting officer’s qualified comments had prompted a request for written confirmation. No later written approval was located in the reviewed correspondence. TP01 · Shed enquiry and conservation advice

The reported verbal assurances and the written reply need to be reconciled. Were officers considering the same structure, location and use? What did Grant record, and why does the family’s understanding differ from the written advice? The Council should identify its present position, any formal action and whether the displayed material accurately represents it. The family’s complaint about consistency must be tested against the separate records for both properties.

A screened timber shed. A contrasting house. Where is the assessment?

For Miss E and Mr J, the disparity is difficult to understand. Mr J describes a modest timber kit shed behind their historic, thatched Grade II cottage, screened from view within rural grounds approaching an acre. He regards it as an attractive garden structure. By contrast, he considers the design of Mr Mayo’s neighbouring house markedly at odds with the cottage and damaging to its setting.

This criticism was recorded before the recent sale-related display. In his email to Torridge of 19 August 2025, Mr J described the existing house as “entirely unfitting in style, detracting from the historic setting” and objected to an extension continuing that design. He asked the Council to record the objection against the application. TP13 · The dated design objection

If protecting the listed cottage explains the Council’s concern about the shed, where are its assessments of the neighbouring house, extension and concrete driveway? Identify the harm, the relevant views, the approved plans and the reasons. Explain how the recorded design objection was considered. The family is asking for a consistent, documented approach to the same historic setting—not an unexplained difference in scrutiny.

Two decisions must be kept distinct. Ordinary Class E outbuilding rights exclude development within a listed building’s curtilage; a large rural garden or kit construction does not automatically remove the need for an application. Whether further enforcement is justified is a separate question of the breach, harm and public interest, requiring proportionate consideration. Government guidance: Class E ↗ · Proportionate enforcement ↗

The heritage comparison should address scale, materials, siting and the contribution of views and surroundings to the cottage’s significance. Different architectural styles alone do not settle that assessment, and a screened structure is not automatically outside planning control. Government guidance: significance and setting ↗

What harm has actually been identified from this shed, and what evidence and policy explain the treatment of the neighbouring works? If any new action has been considered, the Council should identify its trigger, date and reasons. That record can test the family’s concern that planning is being used as pressure rather than applied consistently.

An old route is not a date for every later alteration.

Mr J says concrete was laid over the previously unmade route around 2018–2019. The September 2025 objection also raised works around 2019. The family alleges that the concrete works were unauthorised and that the Council has not produced an approval addressing those particular works.

Peter Stapley’s report for the 2024 forestry-track application records a site visit on 6 August 2024 and an existing concrete driveway approximately four metres wide. It establishes that concrete was present then; it does not establish when it was laid. TP02 · 2024 track report and refusal

In her 24 September 2025 reply, Jennifer Slade inferred driveway works in 1989–1994 from correspondence about historic completion. She maintained that the permission was lawful and extant and that potential breaches were historic and immune from enforcement. That is a substantive Council position. The unresolved question is the evidence supporting it and its application to the particular later works alleged by the family: does the correspondence date the concrete now disputed, or the earlier access? The two accounts must be compared against the same marked stretch of route. TP04 · September planning-history correspondence

The records reviewed do not resolve which permission, permitted-development provision or other planning basis covers the alleged later surfacing. Concrete alone does not establish that a separate application was required: the applicable rules and any restrictions depend on the works and site. Official planning-data record: improvement of an existing private way ↗

Which works? Which date? Which approved plan—or other legal basis?

Those are answerable questions. Referring to the age of a route without identifying the surface and works under investigation would leave the central issue unresolved.

Who authorised the concrete—and what was it built for?

Mr J reports that the previous owners of Lower Barley Hayes confirmed they had not consented to Mr Mayo laying the concrete. He says no written permission from those owners has been produced. The family alleges that Mr Mayo proceeded without their agreement. This raises a separate question from planning status: what consent or existing private right authorised alteration of that land? The relevant deeds, scope of any access rights and the previous owners’ own account need to be examined together. TP11 · Previous owners and the alleged forestry link

Mr J also says the concreting coincided, in the same year, with tree felling, excavation and clearance. He alleges that the concrete was laid for commercial timber access rather than an ordinary residential purpose, and that the felling was unlawful. His proposed connection is specific: were the surfacing and clearance parts of the same operation? Construction dates, mapped works, contractor records and timber movements can test it.

The 2024 forestry documents provide a relevant comparison, not an automatic answer about earlier works. Henry Bexley’s 9 August 2024 woodland email records no signs of recent felling or processing and no suspicion of commercial firewood sales at the scale he observed. It also records an application for a felling licence being processed. Those observations and the family’s account must be matched to the same dates and land before conclusions are drawn. TP12 · Woodland officer’s email · TP02 · Forestry-track report

Mr Mayo: identify the authority for the concreting, its intended use, the dates of associated clearance, and the licence or exemption relied upon for any felling. Planning permission does not itself settle private land rights, and not all felling requires a licence. These are questions for the underlying records, not labels to assume. Government planning guidance ↗ · Forestry Commission: licensing and exemptions ↗

The heritage concern was raised before the decision.

On 21 September 2025, Miss E and Mr J told Planning Support and Peter Stapley that heritage assessments were not visible on the portal and that the works affected the setting of their Grade II listed home. Planning Support replied on 22 September that it held “no additional public documents separate to what is on these files”. TP04 · The request and Council’s reply

The family’s nine-page objection of 29 September went further. Under the heading “Conservation Officer’s Heritage Assessment – Incomplete and Misleading”, it challenged the note’s scope, reliance on older photographic material and the conclusion it quoted as “no greater harm”. It said the concrete driveway and construction traffic beside the listed building had not been properly addressed. Pages 7–8 expressly requested a fresh assessment before determination. TP06 · Detailed objection, pages 6–8

This is a challenge to the adequacy and coverage of an existing conservation note as well as a request for the missing assessment material. The specific challenge to the photograph and account of inspection is examined in the assessment-integrity strand below.

Torridge’s published requirements call for a heritage statement where a planning application may affect a heritage asset’s significance, including its setting. Detail should be proportionate and may be contained within a Design and Access Statement. The question is the substance of the assessment, not simply its filename. Torridge: heritage-statement requirements ↗

Where is the analysis of the driveway, construction access and listed setting—and where is the answer to the family’s specific objection? If another document contains that analysis, identifying its passages should make the position clear.

The assessment-integrity strand · 1/0589/2025/FUL

A disputed photograph.
A claimed visit. Who checked?

Miss E and Mr J allege that the conservation assessment gave a misleading impression of a current site inspection, using a photograph which they say predates the application itself. Their challenge is to the honesty of the account of inspection—not simply to the age or appearance of an illustration. They put the photographic discrepancy in writing before permission was recorded.

Pages 6–8 of their 29 September 2025 objection quote the officer’s wording as “It is only when you visit the site…”. The letter contrasts two photographs and says the image attributed to the assessment predates repairs to the stone wall and installation of new gates. TP14 · The photographic challenge and sending record

• Photo A — the family’s comparison: the reproduced camera image visibly bears 2025-05-04 06:24:13. It shows the gate/fence arrangement, grass and improved entrance described by the family.
• Photo B — the image challenged: reproduced in the objection as the Council’s outdated photograph. It shows muddy ground and a different entrance arrangement, without the gate/fencing visible in A. No capture timestamp is visible in this reproduction.

We have reviewed the objection and both reproduced images. The original conservation note, its full visit wording, the original photograph and its capture information remain to be obtained. The separate 2006 aerial photograph mentioned in the objection must not be confused with ground-level Photo B.

The test is direct. If Photo B was represented as taken on a particular visit date, a verified capture date inconsistent with that claim would require explanation. If it was a historical illustration and a separate inspection occurred, the Council should identify that distinction and produce the visit record. The family’s allegation can be tested against records, not answered merely by pointing to the existence of a planning decision.

The people and functions asked to account for it.

• Peter Stapley — case handling: what was checked and put before the decision-maker?
• Helen Smith — planning management: who owned the review and what oversight followed?
• Sarah Chappell — conservation: did she author or contribute to the note, and who handled the challenge?
• Jennifer Slade — registration and referral records: where did the objection and attachment go?
• The conservation note’s author — identity sought from Torridge: when was the visit, and what is the photograph’s provenance?

The email’s wider Council copy list also names Martin Setherton, Steve Hearse and Staci Dorey, and includes Building Control. They are recorded here as copied recipients, not presumed authors or decision-makers. The Council is asked to identify any resulting referrals, review and the officer responsible for answering.

Roles refer to the relevant 2024–2025 records, not an assertion of each person’s current post. TP15 · Role sources

Who visited? When was the photograph taken? What was done when its accuracy was challenged?

Read the six assessment-integrity questions →

A request received. An enforcement request said to be absent.

The reviewed 24 June 2025 email expressly requested a planning-enforcement investigation. On 27 June, the complaints acknowledgement said the entire email had been passed to Jennifer Slade. Yet the Stage 1 response, dated 4 July and sent on 10 July, said no correspondence requesting an enforcement case had been received. TP03 · Complaint, acknowledgement and Stage 1 reply

One attempted delivery to an enforcement address failed. Delivery to the Council’s complaints service is separately evidenced by its acknowledgement. The question is therefore what happened after receipt: was the request referred, assessed, rejected for insufficient particulars, or not logged as an enforcement matter?

Miss E and Mr J renewed their request in September. The public-interest issue is the audit trail: who received the request, who decided what to do with it, and where is that decision recorded? A service complaint and an enforcement case may have different procedures, but the resident still needs a clear explanation of how the expressed request was handled.

Was the objection considered before permission was recorded?

The Council’s 19 August 2025 neighbour letter said later representations would still be considered while the application remained undecided. Peter Stapley’s 23 September email instead gave a 26 September deadline and said later comments would not be accepted. The family’s detailed objection was sent on 29 September. TP05 · Consultation and deadline correspondence

The Council’s published delegated list records permission for application 1/0589/2025/FUL on 14 October 2025—after that objection. The report and submission log are needed to establish whether it was considered and where its points were addressed. Council’s delegated decision list ↗

The discrepancy calls for an explanation. The question is specific: was the 29 September submission before the decision-maker, and what consideration did it receive?

The historic-plan question · 1/0313/1988

Fourteen days.
A warning of refusal.
Where is the plan?

Miss E and Mr J challenge the Council to produce the amended garden/curtilage plan that they say was repeatedly requested, subject to a 14-day warning of refusal, but remains unidentified in the records supplied to them. Their allegation is that a material requirement was left unresolved while the Council now relies on the resulting permission. The question is specific: what document or recorded decision closed that gap?

Their six-page letter dated 17 September 2025, sent to Torridge on 21 September, sets out the point on page 2. We have reviewed that letter. It attributes a request to 7 November 1988 for an amended plan identifying the garden/curtilage—the land associated with the dwelling—because its extent affected the permitted-development allowance. It quotes the warning that, if the plan was not received within 14 days:

“the application will have to be returned with a recommendation for refusal.”

Mr J identifies a handwritten note on a historic plan uploaded to the Council’s register as part of the record behind his objection. The family’s position is that the requested plan does not appear on the register and that the Council has not identified the submission resolving the requirement. TP16 · The reviewed quotation and Mr J’s account

This matters beyond an old deadline. The family is asking how the approved extent of the dwelling’s associated land was established, how the later drawings fit, and which records underpin the Council’s present explanations about the property and access. A complete decision trail would allow those explanations to be tested.

The questions, assigned to the relevant functions.

• Torridge District Council — holder of the planning record: produce the annotated original, the requested plan or response, and the record resolving the requirement.
• Jennifer Slade — historic-record and complaint responses: identify the accepted drawing and explain the status of the 1991 plans.
• Peter Stapley — Principal Planning Officer and 2025 case officer: identify what historic documents informed the later assessment and how the objection was handled.
• Helen Smith — Planning Manager in the 2025 record: establish who will reconcile the dates, documents and Council explanations.

These questions concern the named officers’ documented later roles, not an assertion that they made the historic decision. TP15 · Why these officers are named

Show the requirement. Show the response. Show what was approved.

Read the four historic-plan questions →

The permissions cannot be left out of the story.

The Council’s July response identifies historic approvals in 1979, 1982 and 1989 and says the 1989 approval included the access. The later public record also lists the 2025 extension permission and a positive “PER” entry for the separate forestry-track application on 2 October 2025. It would be inaccurate to describe the entire house as having no planning permission, or to present the 2024 track refusal as the latest outcome. TP03 · Historic approvals identified · TP08 · Later decisions

Those entries do not settle whether every existing feature matches an approved drawing, whether conditions were met, or what authorised any later concrete works. The exact notices, drawings and conditions remain necessary. The positive AGR entry also needs its notice to establish its precise effect.

There is a further dated question. The Council records submission of the historic application on 18 February 1988 and approval on 13 April 1989. Historic England records the relevant cottage’s listing on 25 March 1988, between those dates. How was that listed status considered at determination? The correct listing entry is Barleyhayes Cottage, 1104559; a different number used in an earlier family objection is not relied upon here. TP07 · Listing and policy context

The family’s quoted 14-day warning and the unresolved identity of the final curtilage plan are examined above. Follow the requirement, the approval date and the questions about the 1991 drawings. The Council is asked to identify the decision trail resolving the request.

The concern about coordination: identify the contacts, test the timing.

Miss E and Mr J suspect that the handling of planning concerns and the sale-related display may form part of coordinated pressure within their wider dispute. Mr J asks whether assistance from the Council has been used by Mr Mayo to impede the sale. The Unanswered Record is examining that concern through the dates, decisions and communications that can test it.

The material reviewed so far does not establish an agreement between Mr Mayo and Council officers to obstruct the sale. The smaller sheet has not been authenticated, its display date is unconfirmed, and different planning outcomes alone do not demonstrate collusion. The next useful evidence is a legible photograph of the sheet, the original camera footage and neighbour’s account, and relevant Council communications about its production or display.

This planning strand concerns the same family and neighbouring properties as the wider Evans case. It does not yet establish a coordinated connection with the separate BH68, police or judicial issues reported elsewhere. Each proposed link must be supported by its own record.

The links we are testing.

The Council was already involved in planning matters in 2024–2025. The fresh question is whether official information or assistance became part of the sale-related display in September 2026. Six lines of enquiry could establish—or rule out—specific connections:

1. From planning advice to the sign. Compare the smaller sheet’s exact wording and reference with the Council’s 12 April 2024 shed advice and any later correspondence. Who obtained or supplied it, when, and was its display discussed? TP01 · TP09
2. From the signs to their effect on viewers. Compare original camera timestamps, the neighbour’s precise account, installation dates and viewing dates with the agent’s 15 September email. This separates the reported act, its alleged purpose and its documented effect. TP09
3. From concrete surfacing to tree clearance. Compare the family’s reported construction and clearance dates with the previous owners’ account, contractor records, licensing history and intended route use. Separate the alleged earlier operation from the woodland officer’s August 2024 observations and the later track applications. TP11 · TP12
4. From earlier Council action to the access dispute. A reviewed copy of Ian McIver’s 6 September 2024 email to Mr Mayo describes a Community Protection Warning issued on 31 August concerning access. McIver signs as Torridge’s Community Safety and Public Health Officer; a forwarding header identifies Luke Cornwell–Seldons. This is a recorded Council–Mayo communication about access, not a new inference from the signs. Obtain the underlying warning, initiating complaint, assessment, route plan and any planning-team referrals. Its connection to the disputed concrete works or later signs remains to be tested. TP10
5. From an acknowledged complaint to the responsible service. Trace the 24 June 2025 investigation request through the 27 June referral to the July response saying no enforcement request had been received. Internal routing and decision records should explain that gap. TP03
6. From objections to decisions. Check the 29 September 2025 heritage objection against the report, conservation advice and applicant–officer communications preceding the 14 October permission. Was the objection registered and addressed, and on what evidence? TP06 · TP08

Who communicated with whom, about what, and when? Matching documents and dated communications are the way to test the family’s coordination concern. The complaint and decision issues are parallel lines of enquiry, not an assumed chain linking every participant.

Accountability does not require a reader to accept a conclusion in advance. It requires the responsible parties to address the particulars: the works, the heritage assessment, the referral trail, the objection and the sign.

The questions have named recipients

Who can answer what?

• Torridge District Council — Planning service and complaints / enforcement management
• Peter Stapley — Case officer identified in the reviewed 2024–2025 planning records
• Helen Smith — Torridge Planning Manager in the 2025 record
• Sarah Chappell — Torridge Conservation Officer in the 2024–2025 record
• Jennifer Slade — Performance and Monitoring Team Leader in the July 2025 complaint response; correspondent in September 2025
• Torridge conservation / heritage team — The Council team responsible for identifying the author and basis of the heritage advice
• Mark John Mayo — Neighbour and applicant identified in the Higher Barley Hayes planning record

Read all 22 numbered questions and why each matters →

These are new publication questions, developed from the earlier correspondence. They have not yet been sent by The Unanswered Record and carry no new response deadline. The family is obtaining the clearer photograph before its next approach to Torridge.

The supporting record.

We have reviewed the planning correspondence, the substantive supplied attachments, the two photographs reproduced in the September objection and the sale-related email and photograph. The source note identifies what each item supports and which original planning records remain to be obtained. Private inbox links, signatures and unredacted correspondence are not published.

Read the dated source record →

The next part of the record

The plan. The photograph. The decision trail.

The annotated historic plan and the response to its requirement can resolve the 14-day question. The original conservation photograph and visit record can test the separate assessment-integrity allegation. A legible close-up of the sheet beside the sale-related sign will establish what that sheet says. Each strand needs its own records—and a clear answer from the responsible party. We will add the originals and material responses as they become available.

A decision should lead back to a record. A record should lead to an answer.