The dates.
The documents.

TP01 · 10 January–12 April 2024; contributor update 18 September 2026

Shed enquiry, reported verbal assurances and written advice

The January email records qualified visiting-officer comments and seeks written confirmation. The Council registered LB/0019/2024. Sarah Chappell’s two-page advice dated 12 April says shed installation requires planning permission and identifies the advice as non-binding officer opinion. It does not approve the shed. On 18 September 2026, Mr J additionally described a reassuring planning-department telephone call and Grant’s visit: he says he showed the location behind the house, Grant took photographs and dismissed concerns about that position. The exact visit/call dates, officer notes and photographs have not been supplied. Mr J describes garden storage and occasional sitting use, with no water connection or bathroom. This is his account of use and oral advice, not a formal permission or a verified legal classification.

TP02 · 6–7 August 2024

Forestry-track report and refusal

The supplied report identifies Peter Stapley, records the 6 August visit and an existing concrete driveway, and considers the proposed 161 m × 4 m track. The one-page refusal of 7 August concerns what was reasonably necessary for forestry operations, not a finding that the existing drive was unlawful. These were reviewed as attachments supplied in November 2024.

TP03 · 24 June–10 July 2025

Enforcement complaint, acknowledgement and response

The email requests an investigation; a failed enforcement-address delivery is recorded alongside successful complaints-service receipt. Anna Fay’s 27 June acknowledgement says the whole email was passed to Jennifer Slade. The three-page Stage 1 reply, dated 4 July and sent 10 July, does not uphold the complaint. It identifies historic approvals but says no enforcement request had been received. The approved notices and drawings it describes are not attached to that response.

TP04 · 17–24 September 2025

Planning-history and heritage requests

A six-page letter dated 17 September and two-page summary were emailed on 21 September. The covering email says no heritage assessments were visible on the portal. Planning Support’s 22 September reply supplies six application links, directs to digital files and says no additional public documents are held separately. Peter Stapley’s 23 September email refers the information request to the FOI officer; an outcome was not located in the reviewed material. The chain includes renewed requests on 23 September and Jennifer Slade’s 24 September explanation of missing or unscanned historic records and the inferred 1989–1994 driveway date. Slade maintains that the permission was lawful and extant and potential breaches historic and immune. She directs further complaints to the complaints process. This is not an express Council statement that no heritage assessment of any kind ever existed.

TP05 · 19 August and 23 September 2025

The consultation deadline

The 19 August amended-information letter for 1/0589/2025/FUL allows later representations while undecided. The 23 September email gives a 26 September cut-off and says later comments will not be accepted. The treatment of the subsequent objection needs the submission log and decision report.

TP06 · 29 September 2025

Nine-page formal objection

The sending email and nine-page attachment were reviewed. Pages 6–8 challenge the conservation officer’s note, older photographs, setting and access impacts and request a fresh assessment. The letter alleges circa-2019 concrete works. It reproduces the objectors’ account and quotations, not the original conservation note or a Council admission. A separate three-page boundary-plan submission concerns 1/0640/2025/AGR.

TP07 · Public context checked 18 September 2026

Listing identity and heritage requirements

Historic England’s Barleyhayes Cottage entry 1104559 gives 25 March 1988 as the listing date. It corrects the different entry number cited in the earlier objection. Torridge’s currently published heritage-statement requirements address significance and setting, allow proportionate detail and integration in a Design and Access Statement. The applicable version at the 2025 decision should also be identified. Government heritage guidance explains assessment of significance and setting.

TP08 · Decisions recorded 2 and 14 October 2025

The later decisions

Indexed text of the Council’s delegated decision list records 1/0640/2025/AGR as PER on 2 October and 1/0589/2025/FUL as PER on 14 October. Both identify Mark Mayo and Peter Stapley. The entries are also in the 6 November 2025 committee pack, printed pages 105 and 107. The detailed register was inaccessible during this review; the decision notices, full reports, approved drawings and conditions were not retrieved. An AGR code is not a substitute for its precise notice.

TP09 · Email 15 September; contributor update 18 September 2026

Estate-agent email, photograph and account of further evidence

The agent’s email and supplied photograph were read, including an enlarged inspection of the smaller sheet. The large sign reads “KEEP OUT” and “NO PLANNING”. The agent reports that it put the first viewers off and refers to neighbours. On 18 September 2026, Mr J attributed the signs to Mr Mayo and alleged deliberate sale obstruction. Asked for the source, he said a neighbour confirmed Mr Mayo’s involvement on Saturday and security cameras recorded him putting up signs outside the front of the property. The calendar date, neighbour’s precise account and original footage have not yet been supplied. This clarification is reported as Mr J’s account, not as a directly reviewed admission by Mr Mayo. The smaller sheet’s text, author, legal status and display date cannot be established from the available photograph. No collapsed agreed sale or quantified loss is established by the agent’s email.

TP10 · 31 August–9 September 2024; supplied 6 November 2024

Council correspondence with Mr Mayo about access

A one-page attachment headed “25 Email from Ian McIver (TDC)” reproduces an email dated 6 September 2024, addressed to Mr Mayo. Ian McIver signs as Community Safety and Public Health Officer, Torridge District Council. He says a Community Protection Warning was issued to the neighbours on 31 August, asking them not to obstruct access to and from Mr Mayo’s property, applicable to him and his visitors and in place for 24 months. The page contains a Luke Cornwell–Seldons forwarding header dated 9 September. It was supplied in the family’s 6 November 2024 email and has been visually reviewed. It is a reproduced communication, not the underlying warning, a planning approval, or proof of Council involvement in the September 2026 signs. The initiating complaint, warning, assessment and mapped route are needed to examine the intervention.

TP11 · Contributor account supplied 18 September 2026

Previous owners’ reported lack of consent and the alleged forestry link

Mr J says the previous owners of Lower Barley Hayes confirmed that they had not consented to Mr Mayo laying the concrete and that no written landowner permission has been produced. He says the concreting occurred in the same year as tree felling, excavation and clearance, and alleges that its purpose was commercial timber transport rather than residential access. He also alleges unlawful felling. The previous owners’ own statement, precise dates and locations, relevant deeds, original construction records and licensing history have not yet been supplied for this strand. These claims are attributed to Mr J; they are not treated as findings established by the 2024 forestry documents.

TP12 · 9 August 2024; supplied 6 November 2024

Henry Bexley’s woodland visit notes

The one-page attachment “23 Email from Henry Bexley (woodland officer)” reproduces his email to Mark Mayo dated 9 August 2024. Bexley signs as Woodland Officer, Forestry Commission England. It reports his inspection concerning alleged illegal felling, describes observed timber volumes and condition, and records no signs of recent felling or processing and no suspicion of commercial firewood sales at the observed scale. Some historical explanations are expressly attributed to Mr Mayo. It describes a small woodland pathway and a felling-licence application being processed, not an issued licence covering every earlier event. The original licence and any later investigation outcome are needed; the observations must not be silently backdated to the earlier concrete works alleged by the family.

TP13 · 19 August 2025; contributor clarification 18 September 2026

The recorded design objection and comparison with the shed

Mr J’s sent email “Objection to Extension Plans at Higher Barley Hayes”, dated 19 August 2025, was read in full. It calls the existing house’s style unfitting to the listed cottage’s setting, objects to extension in a similar style and requests formal recording of the objection. It also asserts effects on marketability and restrictions on access; these remain the objector’s positions, not independent determinations. On 18 September 2026, Mr J described the shed as an attractive, screened timber kit structure behind the cottage in rural grounds approaching an acre and contrasted its appearance with the neighbouring house. Plot area, sightlines and this aesthetic assessment are attributed to him. The comparison must be tested against site plans, measured dimensions, photographs, original approvals and the Council’s assessments. The August email has no attachment in the retrieved message.

TP14 · 29 September 2025 objection; re-examined 18 September 2026

The two photographs, visit allegation and email distribution

The nine-page objection dated 29 September 2025 has been read, including visual inspection of pages 6–8. Page 6 quotes the conservation note as saying “It is only when you visit the site…” and alleges that its photograph predates wall repairs and new gates. Photo A carries the visible timestamp 2025-05-04 06:24:13. Photo B on page 7 has no visible capture timestamp and shows an earlier-looking entrance without the same gate/fence arrangement. The images were taken from different viewpoints; their original files, capture dates and metadata have not been authenticated in this review. The separate 2006 aerial mentioned in the letter is not Photo B. Page 8 alleges photographs over a year old and a misleading implication that a visit occurred. Mr J additionally says Photo B predates the application; an exact chronology requires the original image and application record. These are recorded allegations and observable features of the supplied reproductions, not a retrieved original Council report. The matching sent email was read in Outlook: 29 September 2025, 12:53 as displayed, to Planning Support and Peter Stapley, with the nine-page attachment displayed as 508 KB. The Council copy list includes Helen Smith, Martin Setherton, Jennifer Slade, Building Control, Sarah Chappell, Steve Hearse and Staci Dorey. It also includes Mr Mayo and a family recipient. The email asks for the objection to be placed on the public file in full. Addressing or copying an email does not establish that each person read it, wrote the assessment or approved the decision. The original note, photo provenance, visit record and internal handling remain the primary records sought.

TP15 · Roles in the relevant 2024–2025 record

Why these Council officers are named

Peter Stapley is the case officer identified for 1/0589/2025/FUL in the November 2025 committee pack, printed page 105. An Inspector’s decision recording a 4 February 2025 hearing lists him as Principal Planning Officer. Torridge’s 28 July 2025 Full Council minutes, item 479 identify Helen Smith as Planning Manager. Sarah Chappell signs the reviewed April 2024 advice as Conservation Officer; she is also identified in that role in the February 2025 scrutiny pack, printed page 8. Jennifer Slade’s reviewed July complaint response identifies the Performance and Monitoring Team Leader role; the September correspondence records her substantive involvement. These historical roles explain the functions to which questions are directed. They do not establish who authored the disputed conservation note, who inspected the site, or any individual’s current appointment.

TP16 · Letter dated 17 September 2025; contributor clarification 18 September 2026

The quoted 14-day warning and reported handwritten plan note

Page 2 of the six-page attachment “Mr Peter Stapley Torridge Planning Dept..pdf”, dated 17 September 2025 and sent on 21 September, has been reviewed. It attributes to 7 November 1988 a repeated request for an amended plan identifying the garden/curtilage, and quotes a warning that if it was not received within 14 days “the application will have to be returned with a recommendation for refusal”. The objection states that no such amended plan appears on the register. On 18 September 2026, Mr J recalled a handwritten inspector’s note on a plan uploaded to the Council’s website as the source of the point. The original annotated plan has not yet been supplied or retrieved; whether that note is the same 7 November request, and its precise author and date, remain to be checked against the original. This publication quotes the reviewed 2025 objection and attributes the plan recollection to Mr J. The Council separately identifies conditional approval on 13 April 1989 and, in its 24 September 2025 reply, two drawings stamped in 1991. The record needed is the requested plan or response, its receipt and acceptance, the eventual decision notice and the status of the later drawings. Absence from an incomplete public file cannot settle whether a response was ever made.

What remains to be obtained

The legible displayed sheet; its issuing and display history; original approved historic plans and conditions; the completion correspondence relied on by the Council; the original conservation note and applicant’s heritage material; the full 2025 decision reports; and the complaint / enforcement referral trail. Historical aerial views inspected during the research did not reliably establish the concrete’s construction date and are not presented as proof of it.

No new enquiry or email has been sent as part of publishing these questions. Source documents are retained outside the public website to avoid publishing private contact details, signatures and unrelated material.