Appeal 6001481

The appeal is dismissed.

The application seeks outline planning permission with matters of Access, Appearance, Layout and Scale for consideration. As a result, Landscaping is a reserved matter with any details related to this on the plans before me indicative only.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • the living conditions of the occupiers of Woodside with particular regard to privacy, outlook and sunlight, and • the character and appearance of the area.

To the east of the appeal site immediately beyond boundary planting is a residential property known as Woodside.

Woodside is a detached dwelling over two floors set within a sizable garden. While the dwelling is set away from the boundary with the appeal site, its garden area extends up to, and runs directly alongside, the boundary.

At the time of my site visit, and as detailed on the plans and within the other evidence before me, the existing hedge between the appeal site and Woodside is approximately 5m high. In addition to the hedge, there are a number of tall trees within the garden to Woodside and within the plot to its north-west. These trees generally have high canopies. There is a cathedral window to Woodside serving a kitchen/dining/sitting area directly facing the appeal site.

Set in from the north-western boundary with Woodside is a single-storey wing to the care home. This building finishes approximately in line with the northern boundary to Woodside. As a result, from within Woodside and from within its garden, the care home is generally screened by the boundary hedge and trees to its north/north-west.

The appeal proposal seeks to extend the built form of the care home southwards along the majority of the eastern boundary with Woodside. It also seeks to increase the height of the buildings to the west of the adjacent plot/dwelling to the north of Woodside.

[name] acknowledge that the existing boundary hedge and tree planting would generally screen the ground floor of the proposed development, by reason of its height, length and position in very close proximity to the boundaries with Woodside and the plot/dwelling to its north, the upper floors would be visible from the kitchen/dining/sitting area to Woodside, from its decked area, and from within its garden.

By reason of the very close proximity, combined with its height and length along the majority of the boundary with Woodside and further to its north-west, the proposal would significantly change the outlook from Woodside. The proposed building would be highly visible above, and at some times of the year through, the upper parts of the hedge when in less leaf. This would result in an overbearing impact harmful to the outlook from both inside and outside of Woodside.

Furthermore, by reason of the position and size of the window proposed at Level 01 serving a [name], the proposal would directly overlook the rear garden and rear elevation of Woodside. While this window could be obscure glazed and fixed shut, by reason of its height and position in close proximity to the boundary, it would result in a perception of overlooking and add to the overbearing impact from the building.

Moreover, and although at a lower level and angled, the windows at Level 00 serving proposed bedroom numbers 24, 25, 26, 27, Lobby and [name], would be partly visible through and over the boundary hedging when in less leaf as experienced at the time of my site visit. This would result in a loss of privacy, or at the very least a perception of being overlooked given their position close to the boundary. This would be the case despite at least 25m between windows due to the position of proposed windows close to the shared boundary and due to the angled windows still facing parts of the garden to Woodside. I do not find that any level differences overcome these concerns, or that care home accommodation may not generate the same patterns of activity as conventional housing given that overlooking, or at least a perception of being overlooked, would still exist.

I acknowledge that Landscaping is a reserved matter. However, given the position of the proposal close to the boundary with Woodside and the plot/dwelling to its north, its height, and existing shading levels, I do not find that additional landscaping, that would in any case take time to establish, would be possible to an extent that would overcome these concerns whilst retaining a suitable outlook for future occupiers of the care home.

Turning to loss of sunlight, the position of the proposed building in very close proximity to the western boundary to Woodside, combined with its height, would result in additional overshadowing of the rear garden to Woodside from the afternoon and into the evenings in both Spring and Summer in particular. However, given the overshadowing and loss of sunlight caused by the existing hedge and tree planting and given that any additional loss would be restricted to late afternoon and evening, I do not find any additional increase in overshadowing/loss of sunlight to be unacceptable to an extent that would justify dismissing the appeal on this ground.

It follows from the above that although I find no harmful loss of sunlight, the proposal would harm the living conditions of the occupiers of Woodside with particular regard to privacy and outlook. I give this harm significant weight in light of the scale of the building proposed and its close proximity to the boundary with Woodside. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policy 12 of the Cornwall Local Plan Strategic Policies 2010 – 2030 (CLP) and Policy CHW2 of the Tywardreath and Par Neighbourhood Development Plan 2020-2030 (NP). Amongst other things, these protect individuals and property from overlooking and unreasonable loss of privacy, overbearing impacts and support the provision of [name] provided there is no unacceptable adverse impact on neighbour’s amenity. For the same reasons, the proposal is also contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) that promotes a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.

The appeal site is accessed via a long private drive and comprises an established care home. The site is characterised by mature trees and vegetation to its northern, eastern and southern boundaries, with planting to the western boundary adjoining fields. It does not lie within a protected landscape or fall within a conservation area or within the setting of a designated heritage asset.

The existing main original house (the original house) on the site is two-storey in height and finished in warm earthy tones comprising a generally brick finish under a slate roof. The bay windows, window detailing and use of horizontal banding help to define the character and history of the building. The remainder of the care home is significant in footprint, mainly single-storey and generally rendered under tiled roofs such that they do not closely reflect the design of the original house.

The surrounding area is predominantly residential in character comprising bungalows and two-storey houses in a variety of designs.

The design of the proposal seeks to integrate with the wider site, stepping down with the topography and minimising any effect upon trees. The design of the proposed care home, and particularly its materials palette seeks to reference the existing main house through the use of light-coloured buff brick with horizontal banding, standing seam zinc roof to provide a contemporary alternative to slate, and use of pitched roofs and brick window detailing. I appreciate that the detailing does not match the original house in terms of comprising contrasting quoin stones and intricate banding detail, but it is not seeking to copy the existing building but to provide a contemporary modern alternative.

[name] acknowledge that the proposed care home is larger in scale and height than the existing buildings on the site to be replaced, and that the proposal comprises an obviously new modern residential form, it is generally to an acceptable standard of appearance with the materials matching the tonality of the existing main house and the roof and detailing providing a modern interpretation of it.

Furthermore, by reason of the set back from [site address] , heavily landscaped nature of the site, with only minimal views available from outside of its grounds, it would have a very limited impact on the wider landscape or character of the area.

While the development would be visible from [name] in the short term due to the removal of existing leylandii trees to the north-eastern corner of the site, this would be short-term with the loss of trees subsequently replaced by new planting. [name] also acknowledge that the building would be visible from the rear of dwellings to the east of the site, with the use of oriel windows uncharacteristic of the area, from here, the building would be viewed in association with a mix of designs and materials. Moreover, and while the size and scale of the building would be greater than the context surrounding the appeal site, it already comprises a care home building of a scale and bulk that exceed the surrounding residential properties.

I have had regard to the use of zinc not being a traditional Cornish building material and to the use of flat roofs, panels, angled windows and door and window colours not being traditional to Cornwall. Nonetheless, the building to be replaced is of limited architectural merit with the wider area comprising buildings of a range of materials and designs. In light of this, I see no need for the proposal to closely mimic the existing main house and given that the site is not viewed within a context of properties comprising a clear and solely Cornish character and appearance, I see no reason to find a contemporary modern approach that seeks to reinterpret Cornish architecture unacceptable.

It is also relevant to note that the appellant benefits from a fallback position with regard to implementing an extant consent1, that, although only two-storey in height and positioned to the north of the main house, would be of a significant size and scale.

In light of the above, and although the proposal would represent a significant addition to the height and built form of the area, by reason of its use of materials, position within a treed context replacing existing sizable care home buildings, and distance from the main house, the visual influence of the proposal would be restricted and neutral.

In conclusion, the proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of the area. As such, it complies with [name] 2, 12 and 23, Policy C1 of the CEDPD and Policy H2 of the NP. Amongst other things, these seek to ensure that new development respect and enhance quality of place, achieve high quality safe, sustainable and inclusive design, sustain local distinctiveness and character, increase built and natural environment distinctiveness through locally distinctive, high quality and sustainable design, and be designed to respect the surrounding area in terms of scale, height, materials, alignment and density.

For the same reasons the proposal would comply with the provisions of the Framework that seek to achieve well-designed places. 1 C2/07/01743

I acknowledge the concerns raised by local residents and the Parish Council including matters related to traffic and parking, flood risk, ecology and trees. However, based on the evidence before me and my site visit, I find no reason to disagree with the Council’s conclusions on these matters. Compliance with the development plan in these respects does however carry very limited weight.

The proposal would provide benefits through the provision of 14 additional care home beds at the time of urgent need, provision of new improved replacement care home and beds, and would provide economic benefits from construction and additional resident spend from supporting services and job creation. It is also well located close to a range of services and facilities. However, given the significant harm I have found to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers and given the presence of a fallback position/consent, albeit not delivering direct replacement of all of the existing accommodation, I find that the harm outweighs the benefits.

[name] have found no harm with regard to the effect on the character and appearance of the area, I have found that the development would harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. In my view, this is the prevailing consideration, and the development should be regarded as being in conflict with the development plan, when read as a whole.

Material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that the development should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. Having considered all other matters raised, I therefore conclude the appeal should be dismissed.