Appeal 6001538

The appeal is dismissed.

As the site is within the Cornwall National Landscape (the CNL) I have paid regard to my duty under Section 245 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 to seek to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the area.

The disputed condition relates to approved plans. Therefore, the main issue in this appeal is the effect that varying the condition would have upon the character and appearance of the surrounding area including whether it would conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the CNL.

The appeal site is a triangular shaped parcel of land adjacent to [address] (the Farm) and is set back from the highway. It is located within the West Penwith Section of the CNL and is in an International Dark Skies Park which covers the extent of the West Penwith Section.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of National Landscapes. The West Penwith Section of the CNL is described in the Cornwall Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Management Plan 2022-2027 (the MP) as an historic landscape of unique, sparse, open, coastal moorland. Its general character has been shaped by granite geology and is exposed to the [name]. Furthermore, it notes amongst other things, that the traditional buildings, houses and farmsteads are of local vernacular, granite construction.

Additionally, the appeal site is located within CCA 03: [name] (the CCA). The settlements in the CCA are characterised, in part, by forming clusters of small farms with characteristic granite farmsteads and slate roofs.

The Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Third Edition 2013 outlines, amongst other things, that there may be land outside the boundary of a nationally designated site, that meets the designation criteria and thus there may be land inside that does not.

I am mindful that the appeal site is located on the edge of the CNL and that there are varying built forms in its immediate context. Nevertheless, in my planning judgement, whilst there are residential and domestic buildings close to the appeal site, the general character is rural and thus it contributes to the overall character of the CNL.

The appeal scheme would increase the scale of the dwelling with the eaves levels increased by around 0.8m and the ridge around 0.5m. Although this is relatively minimal, when considered in conjunction with the proposed larger gables and in particular the gables which rise from the wall plate (as well as the larger window openings with a more horizontal than vertical emphasis and the proposed use of timber cladding to the upper floor) it would result, in my planning judgement, in an incongruous, busy and overly dominant design. This is especially the case considering the character of the settlements in the CCA and the West Penwith Section of the CNL.

I acknowledge that the appeal scheme would include external materials such as granite and slate which are significant in the CCA and CNL but this would not, in my planning judgement, overcome the harm I have identified above regarding the overall design of the proposal.

Accordingly, the design of the approved scheme in the 2023 permission would to my mind assimilate with the character and appearance of the surrounding area including the CNL to a greater extent than the appeal scheme before me. This is due to its rather modest design, limited use of gables, generally simple materials palette and relatively vertical focused fenestration.

Whilst the Farm and other residential dwellings close to the appeal site may not be typical of the built form and materials outlined in the CCA this does not justify a development that would, in my planning judgement, result in further harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area, including the CNL.

Regarding the building known as the Workshop near to [address], I do not know it’s full circumstances and therefore cannot be certain that it is wholly comparable to the appeal scheme before me. Nevertheless, each scheme is considered on its own merits and for the reasons given above, it does not lead me to a different conclusion.

I acknowledge the mature hedgerow and boundary treatments that enclose the appeal site. Thus, the visibility of the ground floor glazing would be limited. Notwithstanding this, in my planning judgement, given the scale as well as the overall design of the appeal scheme, and in particular the use of larger gables and fenestration as well as vertical timber cladding at first floor level, a condition requiring the retention of the boundary treatments would not prevent the harm I have identified regarding the appeal scheme.

The appellant refers to a number of fallback positions in the evidence before me.

Firstly, is reference to the previously approved plans associated with the extant 2023 permission. Based on the evidence before me, there is a greater than theoretical prospect that the previous permission would be implemented. I have identified above that the overall design of the dwelling in the approved 2023 permission would be less harmful than the appeal scheme before me due to its scale, materials and fenestration design.

The second fallback position outlined is the possibility of a replacement caravan that could measure approximately 60ft by 20ft. Consequently, given the certificate of lawfulness for the existing use of land for the stationing of a residential mobile home, to my mind there is a greater than theoretical prospect that a replacement caravan could be sited on the appeal site. However, it would be smaller overall in scale and massing than the appeal scheme. Therefore, in my planning judgement the appeal scheme would result in greater harm than this fallback position.

Consequently, the fallback positions cited by the appellant would not justify the appeal scheme before me given the significant harm I have identified above.

I note that the CNL team have not raised comments on the appeal scheme however, this does not alter my conclusions on this main issue.

In conclusion, the variation of condition 2 would result in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area as well as fail to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the CNL. It would therefore conflict with Policies 1, 2, 12 and 23 of the Cornwall Local Plan Strategic Policies 2010-2030 and Policy C1 of the Climate Emergency Development Plan Document 2023 insofar as they seek to ensure that developments are high quality, sustain local distinctiveness and character as well as protect and enhance Cornwall’s natural environment such as the CNL.

For the same reasons it would also fail to accord with the aims of sections 3 and 4 of the [name] 2021.

Based on the evidence before me, it appears that the appeal site is in an [name] for the West Penwith Moors and Downs Site of Specific Scientific Interest (SSSI). I have a duty under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 to assess any impact the proposed development would have upon a SSSI. There is limited evidence before me regarding the SSSI, however, as I am dismissing the appeal for the reasons given above, I do not need to conduct any further assessment in relation to the SSSI.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.