According to the officer report, had 'the local planning authority had been in a position to determine the application in the absence of an appeal on grounds of failure to give notice of its decision within the appropriate period it would have refused the application.'

But because officers failed to determine the application within the proscribed time period, the applicants appealed.

In our initial letter of objection we gave five reasons for our opposing the application, namely failure to identify material planning considerations; evidence of pre application tree clearance; adverse visual impact; discrepancy in the site plans; and existing scenic harm at this location.

Our second letter updated its predecessor. We argued design revisions submitted by the applicant failed to address our previous concerns. The changes were minimal, so minimal in fact that all our original objections were still relevant. 'Indeed', we wrote, 'we are quite dismayed by the applicant’s response.'

The Society's Chair also wrote on his own account, and his submission can be found here.

According to the case officer the Authority would have refused the application on the grounds that:

The proposed development would introduce large glazed reflective surfaces particularly in the southern and eastern elevations and a significant increase in artificial light pollution and would result in increased visual prominence of the site in this sensitive countryside location in the AONB and Landscape Character Area. As such the proposal would fail to conserve and enhance the landscape and scenic beauty of this part of the South Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, contrary to Policies DEV20, DEV24, DEV25, DEV27 of the Plymouth and South Devon Joint Local Plan and the guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

However the Planning Inspector failed to find any of the arguments put forward persuasive. In his view 'the scheme would comply with the development plan when considered as a whole and other material considerations do not indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan.'

The appeal was allowed.