Construction of rear first floor extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 26 September 2018 by A Spencer-Peet BSc.(Hons) PGradDip.Law PGDip.LP an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 13th December 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/D0840/D/18/3200798 4 Windsor Place, Penzance TR18 2PY  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mr and Mrs C Smith against the decision of Cornwall Council.  The application Ref PA17/08102, dated 23 August 2017, was refused by notice dated 29 January 2018.  The development proposed is described as construction of rear first floor extension. Revised proposal (application PA17/05588 was withdrawn). Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues are:  The effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupants of 5 Windsor Place, having particular regard to light, outlook and the potential creation of a sense of overbearing, and  Whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Penzance Conservation Area (‘the Conservation Area’). Reasons Living Conditions at 5 Windsor Place 3. The appeal property is located with a residential area of Penzance, on a secluded mews which is tucked away and behind the properties which face onto St Clare Street. The properties which occupy this mews are of mixed type, being predominately cottages constructed with exposed stone exteriors, with some more modern developments such as the Christadelphian Hall also being present. The appeal property and its neighbour at 5 Windsor Place, appear comparable in size when viewed from the mews. Together they form part of a short terrace of houses, which is typical of the closely knit, reasonably dense development that is closed about this mews. 4. The rear courtyards of both 4 and 5 Windsor Place are modest in scale, and appear well used by the occupants of the host buildings. The boundary between these properties is marked by a wall which is approximately two metres high, with both courtyards being enclosed to the rear by similarly sized boundary treatments to the gardens which serve the properties lining St Clare Street. Consequently the courtyards of both 4 and 5 Windsor Place appear cramped, Appeal Decision APP/D0840/D/18/3200798 2 especially when viewed in the context of the more substantial gardens which serve the properties along St Clare Street. 5. Paragraph 2b of Policy 12 of the adopted Cornwall Local Plan Strategic Policies 2010 – 2030 (‘the Local Plan’) states that development proposals should protect individuals and property from overshadowing and overbearing impacts, which reflects the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) in terms of seeking to secure a high standard of amenity for all occupants of land and buildings. 6. The proposed extension would result in a substantial increase in the mass and scale of the appeal property, with it covering almost all of the lower single storey rooms to the rear of 4 Windsor Place. Given how closely spaced Nos 4 and 5 are at present combined with the boundary treatment, the ground floor rooms to the rear of No 5 already experience some overshadowing. Nonetheless, the presence of the proposed extension would not only have a significant enclosing effect on the outlook from the ground floor of No 5, but would also significantly increase the level of overshadowing throughout the day to an unacceptable degree. 7. Therefore, while I acknowledge that loss of a view is not a consideration which should result in the refusal of planning permission, the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the living conditions occupants of No 5 in terms of light, outlook and sense of overbearing. Accordingly, in that regard, it would conflict with Policy 12 of the Local Pan, as well as with the Cornwall Council Domestic Alterations and Extensions Guide 2012 and the Framework. The Conservation Area 8. The appeal site is situated within the Penzance Conservation Area the significance of which stems, at least in part, from the terraced housing and historic buildings which are positioned on hillsides overlooking a busy harbour and fishing port. Consequently and for the reasons set out below, the reasonably small contribution that the appeal property makes to this townscape and the significance of the Conservation Area is primarily limited to views from the public domain. 9. Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires me to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of Conservation Areas, which is reflected in the wording of Local Plan Policy 24. 10. Within the vicinity of the appeal site there is considerable variety in the scale and design of properties. This appears to principally be a consequence of the historic construction of properties in small batches to differing specifications, and in order to respond to the changing topography and changing use of the land resulting from tourism. While some properties have also been altered over time, notably through the addition of extensions, overall the pattern of development is consistent within small clusters of dwellings. Here the appeal property is consistent with its neighbours within Windsor Place, but bears little resemblance to the Christadelphian Hall, or the high terraced buildings which occupy St Clare Street to the northeast. 11. Given the clustered, screening effect of existing surrounding development, the proposed extension would have a very limited effect on the character and Appeal Decision APP/D0840/D/18/3200798 3 appearance of the local townscape. Moreover, its rather simple design and form would be consistent with other extensions in the surrounding area. 12. For these reasons the proposals would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. Consequently, in that regard, they would accord with Policies 12 and 24 of the Local Plan, as well as with the Cornwall Council Domestic Alterations and Extensions Guide 2012 and the Framework. Conclusions 13. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Andrew Spencer-Peet INSPECTOR