Appeal 6004188

The appeal is dismissed.

The proposal is for [name] following the grant of Permission in Principle (PIP). The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that this is an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing-led development. The PIP has established that the location, land use, and amount of development is suitable in principle. The Technical Details Consent that is the subject of this appeal can consider the remaining detailed matters but cannot reopen what has been agreed at the Permission in Principle stage. I have determined this appeal on that basis.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: • the living conditions of the occupants of ‘[name] and ‘ [site address] ’ in regard to outlook, privacy and overshadowing, and also the occupants of the proposal and ‘ [site address] ’ with regard the provision of outdoor space; and • the character and appearance of the area, having regard to the setting of [site address] .

There is some dispute between the main parties regarding both the proposed separation distances, and differences in height between the proposed dwelling and the neighbouring properties [site address] and [name] (the neighbouring properties). Nevertheless, even taking the measurements provided by the appellant, the proposed dwelling would be in close proximity to the neighbouring properties and garden areas, and due to the steep topography be set above these neighbouring dwellings.

The proposal presents as a single storey dwelling from the roadside and is proposed to be cut into the hillside. However, by virtue of the significant differences in height and proximity, it would nevertheless be overbearing when seen from the neighbouring properties and their garden areas. This would be further emphasised by both the linear form and massing of the proposal which, when looking up from neighbouring properties, would be seen as a dominant feature and overshadowing, particularly in the evening given its spatial relationship with the garden area of the [name].

Moreover, the proposal features a ground floor terrace area as well as large full height areas of glazing to the first floor facing the neighbouring properties. A section drawing has been provided, which also indicates an extant planning permission at [site address] . Nevertheless, given the height difference and juxtaposition of the proposed dwelling in relation to the neighbouring properties, this does not sufficiently demonstrate that there would not be direct overlooking down into rooflights at [site address] , as well as the currently relatively private garden area, conservatory and rear windows of the [name].

The large windows and external terrace would result in a significant increase in opportunities for overlooking and also perceived overlooking towards these properties, even if certain rooms aren’t in regular use throughout the day. This would result in a significant loss of privacy for current and future occupants of the neighbouring properties.

Furthermore, due to the variance in ground level across the site and likely sight lines from the first floor of the proposal, I am not satisfied that additional planting, which could take time to mature and vary in screening properties throughout the year, could mitigate the harm identified. Additional boundary enclosures would also be likely to need to be a height, in conjunction with their proximity to neighbouring properties and the higher ground levels, that in themselves would result in an overbearing feature.

Policy G1 of the Climate Emergency Development Plan Document 2023 (CEDPD) requires, amongst other things, that homes should have access to a well-proportioned and well-orientated garden (generally equal in size to the footprint of the house) or other communal green space that provides a cohesive and useable space.

Although the submitted plans do not clearly indicate whether the proposed garden areas are associated with the proposed dwelling or [site address] , the appellant has stated that the entirety of the application site is to be provided in association with the proposed dwelling. I therefore have no detail in relation to the availability or useability of outdoor space for the occupants of [site address] , and I have not been directed to any nearby communal green space. As such, whilst future occupants of the proposal could have access to sufficient outdoor space, I cannot be sure that the occupants of [site address] , would themselves have access to an appropriate useable outdoor space if the proposal were to come forward.

My attention has also been drawn to the existing perception of overlooking from the dwelling known as ‘[address]’ which I observed during my site visit. Nevertheless, that property has a greater separation distance and differing spatial relationship to the neighbouring properties than the appeal site. Additionally, even if there is some overlooking from this property, this in itself is not a reason to allow development which would further harmfully effect neighbouring occupiers living

For the reasons detailed above the proposal would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupants of ‘[name] and ‘ [site address] ’ in regard to outlook, privacy and overshadowing, and also the occupants of ‘ [site address] ’ with regard the provision of outdoor space. Therefore, the proposal would conflict with Policies 12 and 13 of the Cornwall Local Plan Strategic Policies 2010-2030 (LP) and CEDPD Policy G1. As well as that previously outlined, these policies seek, amongst other things, to ensure development protects individuals and property from overlooking and unreasonable loss of privacy, and overshadowing and overbearing impacts.

The appeal site is within a small grouping of dwellings, which the evidence indicates to be within the established grounds of the historic [address]. A mix of dwellings of contemporary and traditional appearance and differing scales, as well as mature planting contribute to the attractive verdant character of the area.

The proposed materials and more contemporary appearance created by glazing and standing seam roof would not be out of character of the area given the presence of [address]. However, due to the topography and linear form of the proposal, it would appear overly prominent and dominating above and behind the neighbouring properties and [site address] when seen from the approach lane. This would be the case despite the retention of mature planting and additional landscaping. Moreover, due to the visual massing, and proximity to the neighbouring properties, the proposal would appear cramped within the appeal site. In combination this would result in modest harm to the character and appearance of the area.

[site address] is listed within the Perranarworthal Neighbourhood Development Plan Historic [name]. This highlights that whilst the original [site address] is no longer in existence, former outbuildings remain, these being the existing [site address] .

The National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) defines heritage assets as a building, monument, site, place, area or landscape identified as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions, because of its heritage interest. It includes designated heritage assets and assets identified by the local planning authority (including local listing). Moreover, the PPG states that in some cases, local planning authorities may also identify non-designated heritage assets as part of the decision-making process on planning applications.

The Council consider [site address] to be a non-designated heritage asset and on the evidence before me I see no reason to disagree, despite it not being recorded on the Council’s interactive mapping as a building, site or monument of heritage value.

As such, the Framework requires that a balanced judgement is made when assessing the proposal, having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset. I observed, despite some modern alterations, the significance of [site address] arises, in part, from its age, architectural detailing and historic association with the now demolished [site address] . This can be observed from nearby surrounding viewpoints, where it’s relationship with nearby buildings and the approach lane provide a setting which contributes to its significance.

Even if modern additions to [site address] , and an extant planning permission for the extension of [site address] have eroded its significance, the prominent visual relationship of the proposal with the neighbouring properties and [site address] described previously would distract from views of [site address] . This would erode the relationship of [site address] with nearby buildings, causing minor harm to its setting and appreciation of its significance.

Consequently, I conclude that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area, having regard to the setting of [site address] . The proposal would conflict with LP policies 2, 12, 23 and 24 and policies 9 and 14 of the Perranarworthal Neighbourhood Development Plan 2021-2030 (NP). These policies seek, amongst other things, to ensure development is of high-quality design which maintains and enhance historic character and conserve, and where appropriate enhance the historic environment.

Whilst the PIP has established that the location, land use, and amount of development is suitable in principle, any detailed proposal that comes forward at TDC is still required to be acceptable in accordance with relevant policies in the development plan unless there are material considerations which indicate otherwise. It does not therefore follow that the granting of PIP at the appeal site would result in a TDC proposal being automatically acceptable.

The appeal site is near the Perranarworthal Conservation Area (CA). I observed that the significance of the CA arises in part, from its historic built form and pattern of development. Due to topography, mature planting and intervening built form, there is minimal intervisibility between the CA and the appeal site. As such, and in combination with the separation distance, the proposal would have a neutral effect on the significance of the CA.

The Council are unable to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply of deliverable housing sites, with the published position, not refuted by the appellant, indicating a 3.9 year supply. In these circumstances the presumption in favour of sustainable development outlined in Paragraph 11d)ii of the Framework is engaged.

Whilst the proposal is described as self-build housing and the Council’s ‘self-build pro-forma’ has been completed, there is no secure mechanism before me such as a planning obligation that would guarantee the scheme would meet the definition of self-build or custom build homes. Therefore, I can only afford minimal weight to the ‘self-build’ element.

Nevertheless, the proposal would achieve an increase in housing supply in an area with an acknowledged lack of housing provision. However, the benefit to housing delivery is modest given the small scale of the proposal for a single dwelling. Furthermore, there would be modest short term economic benefits from the construction of the proposal and further modest economic and social benefits from the future occupation of the dwelling and associated spending in the locality.

Conversely, the proposal would result in significant harm to neighbouring occupiers living conditions, modest harm to the character and appearance of the area and minor harm to the setting of a non-designated heritage asset. The proposal is therefore contrary to [name] 2, 12, 13, 23 and 24, CEDPD Policy G1, NP policies 9 and 14, and conflicts with the development plan as a whole.

The Framework is clear that new development should function well and add to the overall quality of the area, create places which promote health and well-being with a high standard of amenity for future and existing users, and conserve and enhance the historic environment. The development plan policies that the scheme conflicts with are broadly consistent with the Framework. As such, and due to the degree of harm I have identified, I give the conflict with these policies substantial weight.

While the proposal would align with the objectives of the Framework which seek to significantly boost housing supply and promote the effective use of land, I have found the contribution to housing supply to be a modest benefit alongside other modest benefits. Consequently, the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. Therefore, the proposal would not represent sustainable development.

The appeal site is within the zone of influence of the Fal and Helford Special Area of Conservation (FHSAC). Within the vicinity of the FHSAC, new residential development would lead to increased levels of recreational activity. This would be likely to have a significant effect on the designated features of the FHSAC either on its own or cumulatively with other similar development, without avoidance measures.

The application had been accompanied by an undertaking under Section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972 to seek to mitigate recreational impact of the proposal on the habitat sites. Notwithstanding, Regulation 63(1) of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 indicates the requirement for an Appropriate Assessment is only necessary where the competent authority is minded to give consent for the proposal.

Given my conclusions, it is not necessary for me to consider this matter any further as the proposal would not take place and would not affect the habitat site. Moreover, even if I were to find that suitable mitigation had been appropriately secured, a lack of harm would only be a neutral factor.

For the reasons given above, I find that the proposal would conflict with the development plan, read as a whole. No material considerations, individually or cumulatively, indicate that a decision should be taken otherwise than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. [planning inspector] INSPECTOR