Appeal 3314827

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for single storey rear extension at [site address] , [site address] , Rock, Wadebridge, Cornwall [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref PA22/09056, dated 6 October 2022, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 1:1250 scale location plan (194 129 75986), 1:500 scale plan ([name]. 011498361), and drawing numbers 6098/06 and 6098/07.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host building and area.

[address] is an attractive and ornate building, which is set back from [site address] in a predominantly residential area. The building is a former hotel, which has been converted to dwellings. The appeal site is a mid-terraced dwelling within the structure.

[address] would have been originally designed with its main elevation facing the road, the main entrances to the dwellings are positioned on the northwest elevation, which is also where vehicle parking occurs, away from the road. For ease of reference, hereafter I shall refer to the northwest elevation as the rear.

I acknowledge that [address] has a generally uniform appearance, however, the rear elevation cannot be seen from the public domain. Moreover, to the extent that this uniformity has aesthetic merit, it is most appreciated from [site address] . Views of the rear elevation are restricted and, due to the depth of the site, a comprehensive view of the full elevation is not possible. Thus, any uniformity is less apparent on the rear. In any case, I noted during my site visit that there were variations between dwellings. It is the coherent design of the road facing elevation of the building that by far makes the most positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area.

I note that there are a variety of extensions and roof designs in the locality, including a shallow mono-pitch building within the parking area. I also acknowledge that the proposed flat roof is not typical of the traditional architectural vernacular of the building. Nevertheless, it would be set back from an adjoining two-storey projection which, together with the two-storey projection on the opposite side, mean it would only be seen from positions close to the site. Furthermore, given its position to the rear, it would be in a discrete location. As such, it would have no adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area.

Whilst it would cut into the roof of the existing canopy, it would be finished in materials to match, and it would be subservient in scale to its host. The windows would generally match those at ground floor level. Taking these matters into account together with the visual context of the appeal scheme, the flat roof design would not be a visually obtrusive, prominent or discordant feature.

Consequently, the development would have an acceptable impact on the character and appearance of the host building and the area. In this respect the development would comply with Policies 2 and 12 of the Cornwall Local Plan Strategic Policies 2010 – 2030 and Policies 1.3 and 2.7 of the St. Minver Parishes Neighbourhood Development Plan 2017 – 2030. Together these policies, amongst other things, seek to ensure development is high quality, maintains and enhances Cornwall’s distinctive character and demonstrates a cultural, physical and aesthetic understanding of its location. The development would also comply with the design policies of the National Planning Policy Framework, 2021 (Framework).

The Council has referred to an existing planning permission. However, no details of this have been submitted to enable me to take it into account. In any case I have considered this appeal proposal on its own merits.

In addition to the standard time limit condition, I have specified the approved plans in the interests of certainty.

The development would accord with the development plan and the Framework. As such, for the reasons given I conclude that the appeal should succeed.