New focus · PLAN-19–PLAN-22
A 14-day warning. Which document resolved it?
The family’s reviewed September 2025 letter quotes the refusal warning. Mr J identifies a handwritten plan note behind the objection. These four questions seek the original requirement, the response, the approved drawing and the basis of the Council’s later explanations.
- Torridge District Council — Fourteen days to supply a plan: where is the response?
- Jennifer Slade — Which drawing resolved the curtilage issue—and what are the 1991 plans?
- Peter Stapley — What historic plans did you rely on when assessing the 2025 application?
- Helen Smith — Who will reconcile the warning, approval and later drawings?
Read the historic-plan strand → · Read the quotation’s source note →
New focus · PLAN-13–PLAN-18
The photograph, the visit and the warning.
Six questions test the family’s allegation that the conservation note misrepresented a current inspection. The original author is not yet identified. Named officers are asked about their documented roles, involvement and handling of the objection.
- Torridge conservation / heritage team — Who visited, when—and when was the disputed photograph taken?
- Peter Stapley — What did you do with the photographic challenge before the decision?
- Helen Smith — Who was responsible for checking the assessment after this warning?
- Sarah Chappell — Did you author, review or supply the conservation advice?
- Jennifer Slade — Where is the record of the objection’s registration and referral?
- Torridge District Council — Will the Council produce the original record and answer the allegation?
Read the assessment-integrity strand → · Read the photographic source note →
Planning service and complaints / enforcement management
Torridge District Council
The family alleges unequal treatment and asks whether official planning communications have been used to obstruct the sale. The sign’s connection to the Council remains unverified.
Link to this recipient’s questions
PLAN-01 · New publication question
Is the smaller displayed sheet a Council document?
Did Torridge issue, supply or authorise the smaller sheet displayed beside the “KEEP OUT / NO PLANNING” sign? Once the legible photograph is available, identify its author, date, reference, recipient and legal status. Is it advice, correspondence or a formal notice? Was any officer involved in its display or in communications about displaying it during the sale?
Why it matters: A private sign and an official notice carry different authority. Prospective purchasers should not be left to guess which they are seeing.
PLAN-02 · New publication question
Where did the enforcement request go?
How was the express investigation request of 24 June 2025 handled after the 27 June acknowledgement said the whole email had been passed on? Why did the July response state that no enforcement request had been received? Supply the complaint and enforcement references, referral dates, assessment and reasons for any decision not to open a case. Address the renewed September request too.
Why it matters: A request acknowledged by one part of a council must have a traceable outcome in the service responsible for acting on it.
Read the article context → · TP03 · TP04 · Link to this question
PLAN-03 · New publication question
What records explain the different treatment and earlier access intervention?
Identify the planning basis, evidence and enforcement assessment applied separately to the shed, the dwelling, the concrete surfacing and the proposed forestry track. Ian McIver’s 6 September 2024 email to Mr Mayo reports a Community Protection Warning issued on 31 August concerning access. Supply that warning, its initiating complaint, supporting assessment and mapped route; identify any referrals between community safety and planning. Provide relevant dated communications with the applicant or his representatives about those issues and the sale-related sign, with lawful redactions. What conflict-of-interest checks or declarations were relevant to the officers handling these matters?
Why it matters: Planning, community-safety action and private access rights are different matters. The records should identify which powers and evidence were used, and whether any relevant communications connected the separate decisions or recent display.
Read the article context → · TP01 · TP03 · TP04 · TP08 · TP09 · TP10 · Link to this question
PLAN-18 · New publication question
Will the Council produce the original record and answer the allegation?
The family alleges that an older photograph was used to give a misleading impression of a current inspection for 1/0589/2025/FUL. Produce the original conservation response, its authorship/version history, photograph and provenance, recorded visit details, and the handling of the 29 September objection. That email also copied Martin Setherton, Steve Hearse, Staci Dorey and Building Control. Identify any referrals or review arising from that distribution and who now owns the response. Preserve the originals and metadata. If the photograph was historical, explain how that was made clear; if any representation was inaccurate, identify its correction and whether the assessment or decision requires review.
Why it matters: The Council can resolve the central issue with primary records. The question is both whether the evidence was accurately represented and whether a specific warning about it received a documented answer.
Read the article context → · TP06 · TP08 · TP14 · Link to this question
PLAN-19 · New publication question
Fourteen days to supply a plan: where is the response?
The family’s letter dated 17 September 2025 quotes a historic warning that, without the requested garden/curtilage plan within 14 days, “the application will have to be returned with a recommendation for refusal”. Mr J also recalls a handwritten requirement on a plan published on the register. Produce the complete annotated plan, identify its author and date, and establish whether it is the same request attributed in the letter to 7 November 1988. Supply the amended plan or response, its receipt date and the record of acceptance. What resolved the requirement before the conditional approval which the Council dates to 13 April 1989? If the relevant records cannot be located, identify what was searched and what evidence supports the Council’s explanation.
Why it matters: A deadline and a later approval leave a specific question between them: what information or decision resolved the outstanding requirement? A traceable answer is necessary to assess the reliability of the planning history now relied upon.
Read the article context → · TP04 · TP16 · Link to this question
Case officer identified in the reviewed 2024–2025 planning records
Peter Stapley
Questions concern the treatment of representations, the heritage objection and the reasons for the track decisions. His recorded case role is the reason for naming him.
Link to this recipient’s questions
PLAN-04 · New publication question
Was the 29 September objection considered before permission?
The 19 August 2025 consultation letter allowed later representations while the application remained undecided. Your 23 September email gave a 26 September cut-off and said later comments would not be accepted. Was the detailed objection sent on 29 September considered before the recorded 14 October decision? Identify its registration, the report passages addressing it and the basis for the different deadline wording.
Why it matters: A resident must be able to establish whether a material objection reached the decision-maker and how it was addressed.
Read the article context → · TP05 · TP06 · TP08 · Link to this question
PLAN-05 · New publication question
Where was the driveway’s heritage impact assessed?
Identify the applicant’s heritage statement or equivalent material and the Council’s assessment for 1/0589/2025/FUL. Point to the analysis of the existing concrete driveway, proposed construction access and effects on the listed building’s setting. How was the request for a fresh assessment addressed? If the conservation note was the sole assessment, confirm that and identify its author, date and evidential basis.
Why it matters: A conclusion about heritage harm needs a visible route from the proposal and site evidence to the assessment. Naming a document is not the same as showing that it addresses the disputed impact.
Read the article context → · TP04 · TP06 · TP07 · Link to this question
PLAN-06 · New publication question
What changed between the 2024 and 2025 track decisions?
Provide the decision notices, reports and approved drawings for 1/0638/2024/AGR and 1/0640/2025/AGR. What changes in the proposal, forestry need, route or evidence addressed the 2024 refusal? How was the family’s 29 September 2025 boundary-plan submission considered? Explain the exact legal effect of the later decision.
Why it matters: A different outcome should be understandable from the changed proposal, evidence and reasons, rather than inferred from a decision code alone.
Read the article context → · TP02 · TP08 · Link to this question
PLAN-14 · New publication question
What did you do with the photographic challenge before the decision?
The 29 September 2025 email addressed to you and Planning Support enclosed the nine-page objection. Pages 6–8 challenged the conservation note’s visit wording as reproduced in the objection and included Photos A and B. Identify when the objection was logged, whether you reviewed that challenge, to whom it was referred and what response was obtained before the permission recorded on 14 October. Which version of the conservation advice informed your report? Point to the passage addressing the disputed photograph, or explain why it was not addressed.
Why it matters: A specific challenge to the evidence behind an assessment should have a traceable outcome. The key issue is not merely whether a letter was uploaded, but what happened to its material photographic challenge before determination.
Read the article context → · TP05 · TP06 · TP08 · TP14 · Link to this question
PLAN-21 · New publication question
What historic plans did you rely on when assessing the 2025 application?
The family’s September 2025 correspondence raised the historic garden/curtilage request before the decision on 1/0589/2025/FUL. Which historic decision notice, conditions and approved drawings informed your assessment of that application? Did you investigate the quoted 14-day warning and the question of which amended plan satisfied the request? Identify any referral, answer and relevant passage in the assessment. If you considered the issue immaterial to the 2025 decision, explain why and identify where that reasoning was recorded.
Why it matters: The issue is your later assessment, not responsibility for the 1988–1991 file. Readers should be able to see whether the specific historic-record objection was examined and what effect, if any, it had on the decision.
Read the article context → · TP04 · TP08 · TP15 · TP16 · Link to this question
Torridge Planning Manager in the 2025 record
Helen Smith
Copied into the 29 September 2025 objection. Questions concern management oversight, reconciliation of the historic plan records, allocation of the photographic challenge and review of the assessment; the record reviewed does not identify her as its author.
Link to this recipient’s questions
PLAN-15 · New publication question
Who was responsible for checking the assessment after this warning?
You were copied into the 29 September 2025 objection and are identified as Planning Manager in the 2025 Council record. What management review, if any, followed its challenge to the photograph and site-visit account? Identify the officer responsible for checking it, the findings, any corrected advice and the approval or review trail before determination. If it was not reviewed, explain the recorded reason. Who will now examine the original note, image provenance and visit record independently of its author?
Why it matters: The public-interest issue includes supervision: who took ownership of a documented challenge to information potentially relied upon in a planning decision?
Read the article context → · TP14 · TP15 · Link to this question
PLAN-22 · New publication question
Who will reconcile the warning, approval and later drawings?
As Planning Manager in the 2025 record, will you arrange a documented review reconciling the quoted 1988 request and reported handwritten deadline, the conditional approval dated 13 April 1989, and the drawings stamped in 1991? Identify the officer responsible, the records examined and the findings. Explain whether any outstanding requirement affected the Council’s later conclusions about approved scope or development, and correct any earlier explanation that the surviving evidence does not support. If records are missing, state what can and cannot be established from the remaining file.
Why it matters: Management oversight should turn repeated requests into a documented answer. The public-interest test is whether the Council can explain its conclusions, acknowledge gaps accurately and correct unsupported statements.
Read the article context → · TP04 · TP15 · TP16 · Link to this question
Torridge Conservation Officer in the 2024–2025 record
Sarah Chappell
Signed the April 2024 shed advice and was copied into the September 2025 objection. She is asked to clarify her involvement in the separate conservation assessment, not assumed to have written it.
Link to this recipient’s questions
PLAN-16 · New publication question
Did you author, review or supply the conservation advice?
You were copied into the 29 September 2025 objection and are identified as a Torridge Conservation Officer. Did you write, review, approve or supply material for the particular conservation note challenged in that objection? If so, identify your contribution, any visit you made and the source and date of the photograph. If not, identify the responsible officer or team and any referral you made after the objection. What response or correction, if any, followed the photographic comparison?
Why it matters: Authorship must be established, not guessed from a job title. A clear account of who supplied the advice and who handled the challenge is necessary to test its reliability.
Read the article context → · TP01 · TP14 · TP15 · Link to this question
Performance and Monitoring Team Leader in the July 2025 complaint response; correspondent in September 2025
Jennifer Slade
Questions concern the historic approvals and the evidence used to date and assess the driveway. She is also asked to identify the plan resolving the historic curtilage request and explain the two 1991 drawings. This describes her role in the correspondence, not a newly verified current appointment.
Link to this recipient’s questions
PLAN-07 · New publication question
What dates the concrete—not merely the access route?
Your 24 September 2025 response inferred driveway works in 1989–1994. Which document dates the particular concrete surface challenged by the family, who say it was laid around 2018–2019? Supply the completion correspondence relied upon, identify the stretch of route, and distinguish original construction from later surfacing, widening, drainage or other works.
Why it matters: Evidence of an old access does not, by itself, date each later alteration. The same physical works must be compared before their planning position can be explained.
Read the article context → · TP02 · TP04 · TP06 · Link to this question
PLAN-08 · New publication question
Which approval, plan or other legal basis covers the actual works?
Supply the 1989 decision, approved site and curtilage plans, conditions and relevant compliance records, including the status of the two drawings stamped in 1991. What resolved the earlier curtilage-plan request? Identify the basis relied on for the present concrete works: an express permission, a specified permitted-development provision, or an enforcement time limit. How was the cottage’s listing between submission and determination considered?
Why it matters: The existence of a permission, its geographical scope, compliance with its conditions and immunity from enforcement answer different questions. The Council’s explanation should identify which answer it relies upon.
Read the article context → · TP03 · TP04 · TP07 · Link to this question
PLAN-17 · New publication question
Where is the record of the objection’s registration and referral?
You were copied into the 29 September 2025 email after corresponding with the family about the planning history. Identify the registration and upload timestamps for the objection and its nine-page attachment, any internal referral of the photograph/site-visit allegation, and the response or decision recorded. Was the attachment available in full to the case officer and decision-maker before 14 October? If this was handled by another officer, identify that officer and the relevant case or complaint reference.
Why it matters: An objection can be sent without its central point reaching the person making the decision. The registration and referral trail should show what was actually available and acted on.
Read the article context → · TP04 · TP06 · TP08 · TP14 · Link to this question
PLAN-20 · New publication question
Which drawing resolved the curtilage issue—and what are the 1991 plans?
Your 24 September 2025 response discussed missing or unscanned historic papers, no additional curtilage plans and two drawings stamped in 1991. Which document establishes the garden/curtilage accepted for application 1/0313/1988? Identify its number, revision, receipt date and approval status. Explain how the two 1991 drawings relate to the conditional approval dated 13 April 1989: approved amendments, later submissions or another status? If the requested plan is not held, what records support your conclusion about the permission’s scope, and how was the family’s quoted 14-day warning addressed?
Why it matters: The Council’s later assurance needs an identifiable documentary basis. A drawing received later is not self-explanatory evidence of what was approved earlier; its status and connection must be shown.
Read the article context → · TP04 · TP16 · Link to this question
The Council team responsible for identifying the author and basis of the heritage advice
Torridge conservation / heritage team
Sarah Chappell signed the April 2024 shed advice. The author of the separate conservation note challenged in September 2025 has not been established from the original note in this review.
Link to this recipient’s questions
PLAN-09 · New publication question
Where are the heritage assessments for the shed, neighbouring house and driveway?
Mr J’s 19 August 2025 objection challenged the existing house’s design and the effect of a similarly styled extension on the listed cottage’s setting. He contrasts it with a timber kit shed which he describes as screened behind the cottage in a rural plot approaching an acre. Identify the relevant assessments and approved drawings for each development, distinguishing existing works from the extension proposal. What significance, scale, materials, siting and views did officers assess? Supply the original conservation note challenged on 29 September as finding “no greater harm”, its author and date, photographs and any site-visit record. Where were the driveway, construction access and the earlier design objection addressed?
Why it matters: The family’s concern is unequal scrutiny of the same historic setting. The answer should show the separate evidence and applicable tests, explain any different conclusions, and identify the response to the recorded design objection.
Read the article context → · TP01 · TP06 · TP07 · TP13 · Link to this question
PLAN-10 · New publication question
How do the verbal assurances, permission requirement and any further action fit together?
Mr J reports reassurance during a planning-department telephone call and a site visit by an officer he identifies as Grant, who he says photographed the proposal and raised no objection to its position behind the house. Identify the officer and supply the call notes, visit record, photographs and advice recorded. How does that account relate to the January 2024 enquiry and the 12 April written advice that planning permission was required? Were the same structure, location and uses considered? Identify any subsequent application, decision or enforcement action, and whether the displayed material accurately represents the current position. If further action has been considered, what actual harm, complaint or new evidence prompted it, when was it received, and how was proportionality assessed?
Why it matters: A requirement to apply for permission is not itself a finding of heritage harm or a decision to enforce. The Council should reconcile the advice and explain the evidence, timing and public-interest basis of any further action.
Read the article context → · TP01 · TP09 · TP13 · Link to this question
PLAN-13 · New publication question
Who visited, when—and when was the disputed photograph taken?
Identify the author, date and complete version of the conservation note for 1/0589/2025/FUL quoted in the 29 September objection as saying “It is only when you visit the site…”. Was a visit undertaken for that assessment? State who attended, when and what was inspected, and supply the contemporaneous visit notes. Supply the original image reproduced by the objectors as Photo B, its source, capture date, available metadata and original caption. Was it described as taken during that visit, or used as an older illustration? Explain why it shows an entrance without the gate/fence arrangement visible in Photo A, which bears a 4 May 2025 timestamp. Distinguish this ground-level image from the separate 2006 aerial photograph discussed in the objection.
Why it matters: Readers need to know whether the assessment represented current observation accurately. The photograph’s date and the visit’s date are separate, verifiable facts; if a claimed new-visit photograph is older, that specific representation requires correction and explanation.
Read the article context → · TP06 · TP14 · Link to this question
Neighbour and applicant identified in the Higher Barley Hayes planning record
Mark John Mayo
The family challenges the authority for the concrete works. Mr J says a neighbour confirmed Mr Mayo’s involvement in the signs on Saturday and that security-camera footage shows him putting up signs outside the property. The family alleges deliberate sale obstruction. The question below asks him to address that account.
Link to this recipient’s questions
PLAN-11 · New publication question
Who authorised the concrete works, when were they done, and what were they built for?
Identify the date, extent and contractor for the disputed concreting and the planning permission or other planning basis relied upon. Separately, what landowner consent or deed-based right authorised those works? Mr J says the previous owners of Lower Barley Hayes confirmed they did not consent: address that account and identify the document and clause relied upon if you say their consent was unnecessary. Did the concreting coincide with tree felling, excavation or clearance, and was timber transport an intended use? Supply the relevant dates, location plans, felling licence or claimed exemption, and contemporaneous contractor or timber-transport records. Distinguish those works from the activities considered in the 2024 and 2025 forestry applications.
Why it matters: Planning status, private authority to alter the land and the purpose of the works are separate questions. Matching dated records can test the family’s allegation that unconsented concreting was linked to timber operations rather than ordinary residential access.
Read the article context → · TP02 · TP04 · TP06 · TP08 · TP11 · TP12 · Link to this question
PLAN-12 · New publication question
Why were the signs put up, and what supports their planning claims?
Mr J says a neighbour confirmed your involvement and that security-camera footage shows you putting up signs outside the property. The family alleges that their purpose was to prevent the sale. What is your response? Identify which signs you erected, when, and for what purpose. What record supports the planning statements displayed? Who supplied the smaller sheet? Did you obtain Council material or advice for the display, and from whom? What is your response to the estate agent’s report that the sign put the first viewers off?
Why it matters: The agent reports an effect on prospective purchasers. Establishing who erected each sign, its purpose and the source of its claims will test the family’s sale-obstruction allegation and whether any official involvement existed.
The response record
The Council’s historic replies and identified permissions are included in the article and source note. This newly numbered pack has not been delivered; no response to it is claimed overdue. We will record delivery dates and material replies when they exist.
Recipients may send a response or supporting records to theunansweredrecord@gmail.com, identifying the PLAN number. Please use official channels for Council records and case correspondence. Readers are not asked to make repeated personal approaches.