Amendments to existing dormer, creation of balcony & associated works

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 11 February 2026 by B Astley-Serougi BA(Hons) LLM MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 24 February 2026 Appeal Ref: 6000720 Rivendell, 7 Porthminster Terrace, St Ives, Cornwall TR26 2DQ • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr and Mrs Atherton against the decision of Cornwall Council. • The application Ref is PA24/02915. • The development proposed is amendments to existing dormer, creation of balcony & associated works. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Applications for costs 2. An application for costs was made by Mr and Mrs Atherton against the decision of Cornwall Council. This application is subject to a separate decision. Preliminary Matters 3. The appellant has referred to a set of amended plans that were provided around May 2025 prior to the determination of the appeal. However, there is limited evidence before me to adequately demonstrate that they formed the basis of the Council’s decision. 4. The procedural guide for planning appeals advises that the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme as it is important that what is considered by the Inspector at appeal is essentially the same scheme that was considered by the local planning authority and by interested parties at the application stage. 5. Consequently, on balance, accepting the amended plans may prejudice the interests of the interested parties. I have therefore proceeded to determine the appeal on the basis of the evidence upon which the Council made its decision. Main Issue 6. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupants of 8 Porthminster Terrace with regard to noise and disturbance as well as privacy. Reasons 7. Rivendell is a terraced dwelling located in a predominantly residential area of St Ives. The appeal scheme would introduce a rear roof terrace on the second floor of the dwelling. It already benefits from a balcony on the first floor. Appeal Decision 6000720 2 8. Number 8 Porthminster Terrace (No 8) has a window that would be directly adjacent to the proposed development. Consequently, the introduction of a roof terrace which would allow future occupants to use the space directly adjacent to the window, would, to my mind, result in a significant harmful effect upon the privacy of the residents of No 8. 9. I acknowledge that the appeal scheme would include a glazed privacy screening and the condition referenced in relation to a permission at No 8. However, I do not know the full circumstances of the permission at No 8 and therefore cannot be certain that it is wholly comparable. Nevertheless, each application is determined on its own merits. Therefore, in my planning judgement, a condition requiring fixed enclosures through glazing panelling would not, in my planning judgement, overcome the aforementioned harm or prevent the harmful perception of being overlooked because of the appeal scheme to the occupants of No 8. 10. Moreover, the use of the proposed development would increase the level of noise and disturbance to the occupants of No 8 to a harmful extent due to its close proximity to the aforementioned window. This would be exacerbated particularly during nighttime hours when background noise is generally lower than when compared to in the day. Whilst I acknowledge the presence of other balconies near to Rivendell this does not justify a scheme that I have identified would result in harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupants. 11. Accordingly, given all of the above the appeal scheme would result in unacceptable harm to the relationship between Rivendell and No 8 regarding privacy as well as noise and disturbance for the occupants of No 8. 12. Regarding the balcony at Numbers 1 and 2 Porthminster terrace (Nos 1 and 2) I do not have the full circumstances of the balcony and therefore cannot be certain that it is wholly comparable to the appeal scheme before me. Nevertheless, each application is determined on its own merits and for the reasons given above it does not lead me to a different conclusion. 13. Given that the appellant has sought permission for additions to the dwelling in the form of amendments to the dormer and a Juliet balcony, there is a greater than theoretical possibility that, if the appeal is dismissed, the appellants might pursue the fallback scheme. Consequently, it is a material consideration in my determination of the appeal. 14. The construction of a Juliet balcony at the second floor of Rivendell, to my mind would be less harmful than the proposed scheme given that it would not allow for future occupants to use a rear roof terrace as a useable space directly adjacent to the window located on No 8. Consequently, it remains to my mind, that in comparison to the fallback position, the appeal scheme results in greater harm to the living conditions of the occupants of No 8 regarding noise and disturbance as well as privacy. 15. In conclusion, the appeal scheme would result in unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupants of No 8 regarding noise and disturbance as well as privacy. It would therefore conflict with Policy 12 of the Cornwall Local Plan Strategic Policies 2010-2030 insofar as it seeks to ensure that development proposals do not result in overlooking and unreasonable loss of privacy as well as prevent unreasonable noise and disturbance to individuals and properties. Appeal Decision 6000720 3 Other Matters 16. The Council has not included character and appearance as a putative reason for refusal. Consequently, based on the evidence before me I find no reason to disagree. A lack of harm on this matter is a neutral factor in my determination of this appeal. 17. The appeal site is in an Impact Risk Zone for a Site of Specific Scientific Interest (SSSI). I have a duty under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 to assess any impact the proposed development would have upon a SSSI. There is limited evidence before me regarding the SSSI, however, as I am dismissing the appeal for the reasons given above, I do not need to conduct any further assessment in relation to the SSSI. Conclusion 18. 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. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed. B Astley-Serougi INSPECTOR