Appeal 6004515

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The appellant has included revised plans within the appeal documentation, which omit the dormer roof extension. The Council and interested parties have not had the opportunity to comment on the revised plans. Therefore, in the interests of fairness, I have determined the appeal based on the same plans that were before the Council when it made its decision.

The main issue is whether the proposal it would conserve or enhance the Cornwall National Landscape (CNL).

The appeal building is a two-storey residential dwelling, prominently located in an elevated position overlooking [name]. It features in far ranging views from the [name] (SWCP) and is within the South Coast Western Section (08) of the CNL. The building features a symmetrical front south facing elevation, and a mix of a cat slide roof, flat roof and both hipped and gabled roofs to other elevations, which add to the character of the building. The building is appreciated amongst a cluster of other buildings nearby, including a large adjacent hotel. Nonetheless, it is separated from them by a road, distance, and in some cases, a field, and consequently appears visually separate.

The Cornwall Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Management Plan 2022–2027 (the AONBMP) identifies the key characteristics of the CNL South Coast Western Appeal Planning Officer 6004515 Section 08: [site address] Peninsula, within which the appeal site is located, is that of tall cliffs with small coves beneath. It is noted for its elevated plateau and wild, isolated, and expansive nature. Furthermore, the Cornwall Character Landscape Assessment Area 13: [name] recognises the area as remote, and notes that dark skies are experienced throughout with only low level light pollution at [site address] Village.

I walked the SWCP to view the appeal building in its context. The proposed side extension would add significant mass to the building, perceptible from all but the east elevation. I accept that the setback and change in ridge height would offer the perception of subservience. Nonetheless, the side extension would be a large addition of mass and scale to the appeal building.

The proposed increase in ridge height would retain the existing roof pitch on the south elevation but replace the current catslide form of the north elevation with a simple pitched roof, resulting in a higher eaves line at this point. Combined with the increased mass of the side extension, these roof alterations would produce a notable and harmful rise in the perceived mass and scale of the prominently visible south, west and north elevations when viewed from the road and the SWCP.

The ground and first floor fenestration on the side extension would be uncharacteristically large and out of keeping with the symmetry and proportions of the main building. At ground floor level, the misaligned wrap-around folding door would also appear uncharacteristic. Taken together with the increased mass and scale of the appeal building, the mismatched fenestration would draw attention to the extension and make the building appear conspicuous within its setting.

This issue would be intensified at night by light spill from the large and uncharacteristic first and ground floor fenestration which, due to their size, would emit considerably more light than the existing openings. While there is already some light spill from the hotel and other nearby properties, these are perceived as visually separate from the appeal building. Although the site is not within a [name] designation, the AONBMP highlights the isolated area and its dark night skies. Policy PD‐P11 of the AONBMP specifically states that development leading to increased light spill will not be supported, and the proposal would therefore diminish and fail to respect the dark skies, designated or otherwise.

The dormer roof extension would align with the proposed symmetry on the south elevation; however, when viewed from the side, its ridge would sit at the same height as the main roof ridge. As a result, the roofscape would appear bulky and top‐heavy, creating a visually discordant form and adding further mass and scale to the appeal building. I acknowledge that there are other dormers in the vicinity, but those examples appear subservient to their host buildings and do not appear bulky or top‐heavy, and I therefore distinguish them from the appeal proposal. Even if I had taken into consideration the alternative plans submitted with the appeal, which would address the issues arising specifically from the dormer, it would not overcome the harms identified in relation to the other elements of the scheme.

Whilst each planning appeal should be determined on its own merits, I have been directed to other developments in the vicinity approved in 2013 and 2010, and I have been provided with some limited drawing detail. However, given the limited detail I cannot be certain under which iteration of the development plan and against Appeal Planning Officer 6004515 which policies they were determined. As such, I afford them little weight in my considerations.

I have also been directed to other development at [address] and [address]. These buildings are located across an open field and a moderate distance to the east and northeast of the appeal building. Again, I have been provided with only limited drawing detail. Even if I accept that these developments were determined under the current iteration of the Cornwall Local Plan Strategic Policies 2010-2030 (2016) (the Local Plan), I have not been provided with any substantive detail to demonstrate against which policies they were determined and what the considerations were. Furthermore, a different iteration of the AONBMP has been adopted since the date on those drawings and section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 has been amended by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. Section 85 requires me to seek to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of National Landscapes. Therefore, I cannot be certain that these developments are directly comparable to the subject appeal, and I afford them limited weight.

Taking all the above matters into consideration the proposal would adversely affect the character and appearance of the host dwelling. The proposal would harmfully increase its mass and scale, introduce uncharacteristically large and asymmetrical fenestration, and harmfully increase light spill. Consequently, the proposal would fail to demonstrate a contextual understanding and response to the unique and characteristic attributes of the site and its setting and would fail to conserve and enhance the landscape and scenic beauty of the CNL, or respect its sensitivity and capacity, a matter to which I must apply great weight.

The proposal would fail to conserve and enhance the CNL. It would therefore conflict with Local Plan Policies 2(1)(a–d), 12 and 23, which seek high‐quality design that respects Cornwall’s special character and conserves and enhances the natural landscape in recognition of its national importance. It would also conflict with Policy C1(7) of the Climate Emergency Development Plan Document, which aims to increase built and natural environment distinctiveness through locally distinctive, high‐quality, sustainable design that conserves and enhances the natural environment. In addition, the proposal would conflict with [name]‐P1 and PD‐P11 of the AONBMP, which require development to demonstrate contextual understanding, respond positively to the designated landscape, and respect dark skies. Furthermore, it would conflict with paragraphs 8, 135, 187, 189 and 198 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024, which, amongst other things, seek well‐designed, sustainable development that conserves and enhances the natural environment.

I am directed that the appeal property retains its permitted development rights; however, because it is located on Article 2(3) land, the scope of what can be carried out under those rights is restricted. [name] have been provided with evidence of what has been undertaken under permitted development rights at another property, I do not have detailed plans before me showing what could realistically be achieved under permitted development rights at the appeal site itself. Consequently, I cannot be satisfied that there is a real prospect of permitted development occurring, that would be directly comparable, or more harmful, than the proposal, and I therefore give this matter little weight. Appeal Planning Officer 6004515

The Local Plan is considered out of date by Cornwall Council, and this affects the weight that can be given to certain policies. While the specific scales of growth set out in Policy 3 are out of date, the approach in Policy 2 requiring development to respect and enhance the quality of place remains relevant and consistent with the Framework. Policies relating to design and the natural environment also continue to align with the Framework. Accordingly, I do not consider that the tilted balance is engaged.

Whilst recessive materials are proposed and could lead to a visual uplift, their use would not overcome the harms I have identified above.

I am directed to potential uplifts to the appeal building’s poor energy performance and thermal efficiency. However, I do not have any evidence to demonstrate these matters. Even if I did, these matters would not outweigh the harm identified.

I accept that the proposal would lead to some limited employment for local construction businesses; however, given the limited scale of the proposal I afford this matter little weight.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.