Appeal 3361409

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed extensions and alterations on the character and appearance of (i) the host dwelling; (ii) the semi-detached pair with Bosava, and (iii) the ‘street scene’ of [site address] .

The appeal property is one half of a semi-detached pair with ‘Bosava’ on the slope of the hillside above [site address] , and with other dwellings the building forms a north/south linear development along this stretch of the coast. Although these properties are both set up and back from the road, I consider they have sufficient proximity and prominence to form part of the street scene.

This prominence forms a constraint to the form of potential development, as does the more traditional gabled design of [address] and other houses to the south. Furthermore, there is another constraint given that Meridian is attached to Bosava as one half of the pair. This is the immediate context in which the appeal development would be seen, and the scale and design are the two significant factors that need to be considered in order to achieve a harmonious form of development, as required by local and national planning policies.

As regards scale, one of the main elements of the Council’s concern is the disparity between the size of the proposed additions (and the overall resultant height and bulk of the appeal dwelling) when seen in close comparison to Bosava. Bearing in mind a proposed increase in ridge height of almost 2 metres and the large amount of additional floorspace proposed, I agree with the Council’s assessment.

Indeed, this is clearly demonstrated by comparing the existing elevations (drawing no. 2263/07) with the proposed elevations (drawing no. 2263/04), with this comparison illustrating the disproportionate effect as regards both scale and bulk on both the existing building and on Bosava.

Turning to design, the appeal scheme presents an overtly contemporary development with a complex arrangement and design comprising a miscellany of flat roofs in combination with the skillion and lean-to roofs and modern external materials. All these elements would be readily apparent in the principal, eastern, elevation to [site address] and would appear in marked contrast with the more conventional front elevation of [address] and the much simpler design and smaller scale of the adjoining Bosava.

Overall, with the combination of its large scale and bulk and contemporary appearance being seen in-between the contrasting appearances of the nearby dwelling to the south and the adjacent dwelling to the north, I consider the Council is correct to conclude that the proposed development would be perceived as awkward and incongruous additions to the host dwelling.

Whilst acknowledging that design quality is inherently subjective, it seems to me that the entirely understandable aspirations of enhancing sea views and securing more living space have in this case been pursued with insufficient consideration afforded to the site’s limitations for additional built form in a satisfactory manner.

I have had regard to the grounds of appeal and have noted the approvals of significant extensions to other buildings in the area. However, none of these have the constraint of being a semi-detached dwelling, whilst I additionally consider that for the most part their extensions are both proportionate and with a design in keeping with the existing dwelling.

As regards the 2016 application approval for Meridian, I acknowledge that this proposal is comparable to the appeal scheme in terms of its large scale, albeit given the presence of [name] also consider that this too is inappropriate. However, the design of that scheme is more in keeping with the host dwelling, which as I have explained is clearly not the case with the current proposal.

Having had regard to the above reasons and to all other matters raised, I find that the proposed extensions and alterations would cause harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling; the semi-detached pair with Bosava, and the street scene of [site address] . This would be in conflict with Policies 2 & 12 of the Cornwall Local Plan Strategic Policies 2010-2030 adopted in November 2016 and with Government policy in Section 12: ‘[name] of the National Planning Policy Framework revised December 2024.

For these reasons the appeal fails.