Demolition of part of existing single storey extension and construction of new single storey extension and dormer loft extension to dwelling and rebuilding of garden wall to front of dwelling

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 20 November 2018 by A Spencer-Peet BSc.(Hons) PGradDip.Law PGDip.LP an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 3rd January 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/D0840/D/18/3205683 5 Cliff Park Terrace, Guineaport Road, Wadebridge PL27 7BL  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 Ms Julia Barton against the decision of Cornwall Council.  The application Ref PA17/09351, dated 2 October 2017, was refused by notice dated 11 April 2018.  The development proposed is the demolition of part of existing single storey extension and construction of new single storey extension and dormer loft extension to dwelling and rebuilding of garden wall to front of dwelling. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the demolition of part of existing single storey extension and construction of new single storey extension and dormer loft extension to dwelling and rebuilding of garden wall to front of dwelling, at 5 Cliff Park Terrace, Guineaport Road, Wadebridge PL27 7BL, in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref: PA17/09351, dated 2 October 2017, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule. Procedural Matter 2. The revised National Planning Policy Framework (the revised Framework) was published in July 2018. The main parties have not identified any specific changes to the revised Framework which affect, or alter, the submissions put to me in this appeal. However, for the avoidance of doubt, I have determined the appeal in accordance with the revised Framework. Main Issues 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the solar panels on the roof of 6 Cliff Park Terrace, Guineaport Road. Reasons 4. The Council, through their reason for refusal, is concerned that the proposed dormer on the rear of the appeal property will reduce the amount of direct sunlight falling on the roof solar panels which are positioned on the rear slope of the roof on the neighbouring property at 6 Cliff Park Terrace, thereby reducing the potential renewable energy output from these solar panels. 5. Policy 15 of the Cornwall Local Plan Strategic Policies 2010-2030 adopted November 2016 (‘the Local Plan’), seeks to safeguard sources of renewable energy from interference by new development which may restrict the Appeal Decision APP/D0840/D/18/3205683 2 availability of their resources. In this instance, it is disputed by the parties as to whether Policy 15 of the Local Plan applies to any and all types of renewable energy installations, or whether the policy concerns the safeguarding of major strategic installations such as hydrothermal or geothermal projects. 6. In my view, the wording of Policy 15 of the Local Plan, and the supporting text which accompanies it, concerns the protection of major installations from the loss of performance resulting from new development. I accept that the wording of the policy is not entirely clear. However, I find that the wording of the policy does differentiate between the protection afforded to existing performance, from the potential future optimisation of performance, but both in relation to strategic renewal energy installations only. Consequently, I conclude that Policy 15 of the Local Plan does not apply in respect of the appeal proposal, and does not concern the impact on smaller scale domestic renewable energy installations, such as the solar panels positioned on the roof of 6 Cliff Park Terrace. 7. Nevertheless, even if Policy 15 of the Local Plan did apply to any renewable energy installation of any scale, the policy confirms that appropriate new development would only be refused where there is significant harm to the performance of the installation. In this regard I have been provided with conflicting evidence as to the impact of the proposed dormer on the performance of the solar panels at 6 Cliff Park Terrace. 8. From the evidence before me, it is apparent that the proposed dormer may increase the level of shade on the rear slope of the roof of 6 Cliff Park Terrace. However, the proposed dormer would be positioned towards the north west of the solar panels, and as such it would not affect the performance during most of the day. Consequently, I consider that the proposed development would not significantly impact on the performance of the solar panels to such an extent as to warrant refusal of planning permission in this instance. 9. I acknowledge the concerns of interested third parties regarding the impact on the level of income that the solar panels would provide, in the event that permission for the appeal proposal was to be allowed. However, in this regard it is a well-founded principle that the planning system does not exist to protect private interests such as the level of income that can be generated from domestic solar installations. 10. In light of the above reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would not conflict with Policy 15 of the Local Plan. Other Matters 11. The appeal property is a traditional late 19th Century two storey terraced house, located on the south western side of Guineaport Road, and within the Wadebridge Conservation Area (the CA). The significance of this part of the CA lies mainly in the presence of the historic buildings and structures, close to the River Camel. I have a duty under section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA. However, the Council has not raised any issue in relation to the appeal proposal’s impact upon the CA. From what I have seen during the appeal process I have found no reason to disagree or to find that the appeal scheme would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA. Appeal Decision APP/D0840/D/18/3205683 3 12. I have considered the details submitted by interested third parties in respect of loss of privacy and loss of sunlight arising from the proposed development. However, due to the scale and orientation of the proposed dormer and extension, and the high boundary walls between the rear elevations of the properties in this terrace, I conclude that there would be no issue of overlooking or overshadowing resulting in a significant loss of light. Furthermore, by reason of its position and scale, the proposed scheme would not have an overbearing impact on neighbouring properties. 13. I also note the comments made regarding potential precedent. However, any future proposals would have to be considered and determined on their individual merits. In any event, as I have not found any reasons to withhold planning permission it could not set an unacceptable precedent in planning terms. 14. It has been further put to me that the proposal would have an impact on the drainage system which serves this terrace, and that it would give rise to noise disturbance and parking issues. In these regards, I have not been provided with any substantive evidence which demonstrates that the proposal would affect the drainage system, or would give rise to noise. Furthermore, at the time of my site visit I did not observe any illegal or obstructive parking in the area which would be indicative of parking stress. In the absence of clear evidence of a local parking issue, I do not consider that the proposal would have a harmful effect on local parking. 15. I also note the comments regarding potential leaking and noise from the bathroom in the appeal property. However, there is no evidence to suggest that any leaks or noise would occur, nor any evidence to suggest that if they were to occur that this would have any significant effect. Conditions 16. In addition to the standard three year period implementation condition, which is a statutory requirement, it is necessary, in the interest of certainty and precision, to define the plans with which the appeal scheme should accord. Conclusion 17. For the reasons given above, the appeal succeeds and planning permission granted subject to the conditions identified. A Spencer-Peet INSPECTOR Appeal Decision APP/D0840/D/18/3205683 4 Schedule of Conditions in respect of Appeal Ref: APP/D0840/D/18/3205683 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin no later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Site/location Plan SHEET 1 REV A; Existing SHEET 2 REV A; Proposed SHEET 3 REV C; and Proposed SHEET 4 REV E received by the Local Planning Authority on 3 October 2017.