Appeal 6003270

The appeal is dismissed.

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

The western limb of Marazion is separated from the rest of the town and surrounded by undeveloped land, giving it a self-contained feel. Development in this area (the enclave) is largely along Green Lane and [site address] .

The enclave somewhat lacks for architectural consistency. Modern or contemporary elements, including some first-floor balconies and glazed doors, are visible here and there but, in the main, local homes are in a mix of traditional styles. Moreover, to move around the enclave is to rely largely upon narrow winding lanes, which are tightly bound by greenery and lack pavements or lighting. Buildings, most of which are revealed gradually, are laid out in a pattern which appears unplanned and organic. Overall, the principal characteristic of the enclave is a distinct quaintness, redolent of a traditional village.

The appeal site is a portion of land at the fork between Green Lane and [site address] . This is a prominent position, partly because it is the only junction between the two roads, and partly because it is central to a significant view of the enclave upon the approach from the south. This northward view is one of relatively few in which several enclave dwellings may be seen in a wide sweep. They are set at different heights and angles, such that the slope of the land and the informal layout beyond may be appreciated. Fields form the backdrop. It is a view that captures the quaint village feel described above, and a fitting introduction to the enclave.

Dwellings seen in this northwards view are mixed in style, and include some balconies and upper glazed areas. Even so, it is those buildings of a traditional rural appearance, with stone walls and small glazed openings, that make the definitive contribution. I say this for two reasons; Firstly, because they are the main and most consistent element within the view, being visible to the left of the appeal site on the roadside behind [site address] , behind it in the main body of [name] and, most prominently, to the right in a wide pair of cottages oriented to face the road. Secondly, it is these buildings which chime most directly with the organic, unplanned layout and rural backdrop. They combine to embody the quaint, traditional village character of the enclave.

The site hosts a residential caravan, timber outbuilding, and shingled drive. Whilst visible from outside the site, these elements are low and partly screened behind existing boundary treatments. The site has a modest, unprepossessing presence.

It is proposed to erect a detached dwelling. It would not be unusually large by local standards in terms of footprint and would have a ridge level comparable to, or lower than, many of its immediate neighbours. Both features would assist in its integration. Even so, the upper portions of the dwelling would be directly visible over existing boundaries and mark the introduction of two-storey development to a site which has none at present. Overall, the building would be prominent, therefore, and the degree of change somewhat striking.

The dwelling would have a broadly traditional shape, with a pitched roof and feature chimney stack as well as natural slate, render, and stone external finishes. These features are common in the local area. I have set out that the proposed glazed gable end and balcony have some local points of reference. That said, neither are common features in the area, and the proposed combination of the two is particularly unusual. It, along with the use of a balcony platform over a void, as well as the clean lines of the supporting columns and corner section, would identify and promote the modern, contemporary design of the building.

The glazed gable end of the proposed dwelling would face out onto the road and so largely define the appearance of the development from the public sphere, including the approach to the enclave from the south. Taken together, the scheme would result in a definitively modern building at odds with the prevailing traditional, rural feel, in a prominent location where it would harmfully erode the character of the enclave.

I recognise that Policy 12 of the Cornwall Local Plan (the Local Plan) and the [name] do not discourage nor seek to prevent appropriate innovation, but that is in the context of promoting local distinctiveness, a clear understanding and response to townscape setting, and continuity with existing built form. The scheme would be harmfully at odds with its setting in these respects.

I recognise that the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) supports outstanding or innovative designs which help raise the standard of design more generally in an area. However, even if I were to accept that the appeal scheme could be described in that way, the support in question is subject to the development fitting in with the overall form and layout of its surroundings. I have found that it would not.

The proposed development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area, and conflicts in that respect with Policy C1 of the Climate Emergency Development Plan Document (2023) and Policies 1, 2, 12, and 23 of the Local Plan.

A certificate of lawfulness has been issued for the replacement of the existing caravan at the site with a twin unit one1. The prospect of this is greater than theoretical. I have little evidence, however, that such a replacement would cause the same or greater degree of harm as the appeal scheme. Indeed, the height of a caravan would be lower than the proposed dwelling, and the local area includes the [name] camping site where caravans appear to be common. It is not evident that a replacement caravan would have the same visual presence in the area or be as at odds with its setting as the appeal scheme.

My attention has been directed to a previous appeal at another site2, in which a dwelling incorporating elements of modern design was allowed. There are, however, material differences between that development and the scheme before me. The previous Inspector found the wider vicinity to contain many examples of dwellings of a much more modern appearance, whereas I have found dwellings in the enclave to be predominantly traditional, albeit with some modern features in places. Also, the location plan for the previous scheme gives me little reason to feel that development of that site had the same potential to effect local townscape. Overall, I attach little weight to the cited fallback position or the previous appeal.

Paragraph 11d of the Framework is engaged as the Council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of housing land. I recognise that the site may be lawfully occupied. Even so, I have little before me to demonstrate that the appeal site is in a sustainable location. In that context, it is not clear that the scheme would make an effective use of land. I have not found it to secure a well-designed place.

Moreover, the fallback position outlined above indicates that the scheme would not result in a net gain of residential dwellings, and so not contribute towards the shortfall triggering the engagement of paragraph 11d.

Set against this, the Framework requires development to be sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting. Overall, the benefits associated with the appeal scheme are sufficiently minor that the adverse impacts of allowing the appeal, which are the harmful effects on the character and appearance of the area, would significantly and demonstrably outweigh them.

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.

The appeal is dismissed.