Appeal 3366935

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for extensions to single family dwelling to create an exercise pool and wheelchair lift shaft at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/00379/HOU, 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 drawing no’s: 1578-03 [name] (Site Block Plan), 1578-OS (Location Plan), 1578-02 [name] (dated 7 May 2025), 1578-01 [name] (dated 7 May 2025), 1578-04 [name] (dated 7 May 2025).

No development above ground level shall take place until details / samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details / samples.

The main issue is whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Freshwater Bay Conservation Area, and its effect upon the scenic beauty of the [site address] National Landscape.

The appeal site is situated within the [site address] National Landscape (the NL). Paragraph 189 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty within NL’s. Furthermore, the [name] and Regeneration Act 2023 requires decision makers to actively seek to further the statutory purposes of NL’s.

Moreover, the site is also within the Easton section of the Freshwater Bay Conservation Area, a predominantly residential area close to the seafront. From the evidence before me, and from what I saw when I visited the site, the significance of this part of the Conservation Area, in so far as it is relevant to this appeal, is derived from the value of the suburban development of [name] in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, and the architectural styles and tastes of the time. It has an aesthetic value due to the appearance of the buildings that comprise the Conservation Area, which are predominantly imposing two storey detached or semi-detached dwellings with front facing gable ends, slate roofs and vertically aligned fenestration.

The appeal property, known as [site address] , is a more modern building. Indeed, its general appearance, comprising a tile roof, brick exterior, and horizontally aligned fenestration, means that it already stands out as an unusual and incongruous feature within the street scene. The proposed development would extend the house to the side and front. However, the front facing extension, which would accommodate the proposed pool, would not project further forward than the primary elevation of the neighbouring property known as Elgin, and the dwelling would not be any more imposing than many of the existing Victorian properties in the vicinity. Furthermore, even taking account of the proposed materials and additional glazing, I do not consider that the finalised appearance of the extended dwelling would look anymore incongruous within the street scene than it already does.

As a result, it is clear that the proposal would not lead to harm, and that the development would therefore preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. In addition, this lack of harm, and the location of the site within an already urbanised environment, means that the proposal would also preserve the scenic beauty of the NL.

The proposal would therefore conform with Policies DM2, DM11 and DM12 of the Island Plan Core Strategy, March 2012. Taken together, the relevant aspects of these policies seek to ensure that new development is well designed and that it preserves character and appearance, including important landscapes and the historic environment. It would also conform with the relevant aspects of the [site address] Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Management Plan, which seek to preserve the natural beauty of the NL. Finally, there would be no conflict with the relevant aspects of the Framework or the requirements of Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 and Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, which in part, have similar aims to the above development plan policies.

I have imposed conditions to identify the relevant timescales and plans in the interests of certainty. The appellant has noted that the original plans, submitted as part of the planning application, showed a rooflight within the roof of the front facing extension. It is clear from those plans that the rooflight would be of a fairly considerable size. This would likely result in an excessive amount of light spillage in the event that the swimming pool was being used in the hours of darkness. This additional light spillage emanating vertically from the roof would, in my view, result in some harm to the character of the area, and in particular, the dark skies associated with the NL. I have therefore found it necessary to include the revised plans within the wording of the plans condition.

A further condition is necessary to secure the details of specific external design features in the interests of character and appearance. The Council has also suggested a condition to require a landscaping scheme. However, the proposal seeks to extend an existing property where soft landscaping already exists. The approved plans show that much of this existing landscaping would be retained as part of the development. As such, I do not consider that such a condition is either reasonable or necessary in this instance.

The proposed development would be in accordance with the development plan when considered as a whole. Having had regard to all matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.