Proposed development is construction of a first floor extension and associated works

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 14 April 2026 by N Perrins MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 29 April 2026 Appeal Ref: 6005310 11 Penpont Road, Roseland Gardens, Redruth, Cornwall TR15 1QJ • 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 Joe Moyle against the decision of Cornwall Council. • The application Ref is PA25/09323. • The proposed development is construction of a first floor extension and associated works. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. When I carried out my site inspection, I was also able to view the site from the rear gardens of Nos 82 and 88 Roseland Gardens. This allowed me to assess on the ground the relationship between the appeal site and Roseland Gardens, the ground level differential, and the screening afforded by the existing boundary treatment. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of Nos 80, 82, 84 and 88 Roseland Gardens in terms of privacy and overlooking. Reasons 4. The appeal property is a detached single-storey bungalow built in the latter part of the 20th Century as part of a wider residential development. The rear gardens of Nos 82 to 88 Roseland Gardens abut the western boundary of the appeal site. Due to the topography of the land, the appeal property sits at a higher ground level than the adjacent single-storey properties on Roseland Gardens, with fencing and hedging along the common boundary. 5. The proposed development would add a first floor to the appeal property. The extension would have windows at first floor on both the front and rear elevations. No windows are proposed on the side elevation facing towards Roseland Gardens. 6. I acknowledge the appellant's contention that the proposed upper floor windows would not directly face westwards towards the properties on Roseland Gardens. However, whilst there may not be a direct line of sight from those proposed windows towards the west, the width of the rear gardens of Nos 82, 84 and 88 extending along the side boundary, combined with the elevated ground level and Appeal Decision 6005310 2 proximity of the appeal site, means that occupants at first floor level would likely still be able to look over and into those gardens. 7. This includes No 88 as, despite it having a more oblique angle to the appeal property, I am satisfied having viewed the relationship between the two on my site inspection that overlooking from the rear windows would still arise due to the topography and close proximity between the properties. Therefore, and based on the information before me, I find that the extent of overlooking that would arise from the proposal would be significant and would give rise to a material loss of privacy to the occupiers of Nos 82, 84 and 88. 8. The appellant contends that impact in this regard would mostly be from the two rooms closest to the western boundary and that overlooking from the other rooms would be negligible by reason of oblique angles. However, I do not accept this for the reasons set out above and find that it would be likely that the first floor rooms would overlook the gardens of Nos 82, 84 and 88 in their respective directions to a meaningful degree. Whilst the extent of such views may diminish with distance and angle from the western rooms, the suggestion that users of any of the first-floor rooms would need to make any considerable effort to achieve such views is not one I accept having regard to my observations on site. 9. Regarding the appellant's assertion that the closest rooms would be low daytime use, the concern regarding overlooking is not limited to those rooms alone. It also extends to the other rooms at first floor level as I have found above, and there is no certainty as to when those rooms would be occupied. Furthermore, the harm from overlooking arises not only from actual instances of overlooking but from the perception of being overlooked, which itself diminishes the amenity value of those rear gardens as private outdoor spaces. 10. Turning now to the impact on No 80, while this property is cited in the reason for refusal, I am satisfied that having regard to the greater separation distance and intervening features there would not be material planning harm to the living conditions of that property in isolation. Finding no harm in this regard, however, does not justify the harm identified to living conditions for Nos 82, 84 and 88 Roseland Gardens. 11. In terms of potential mitigations, I acknowledge there is existing boundary treatment of fencing and hedging, which at present provides a degree of enclosure and prevents meaningful overlooking from the appeal site to Nos 82, 84 and 88 as it exists today. However, the eaves and ridge level of the proposed extension would substantially exceed the height of the existing fence and hedge, diminishing its effectiveness as a privacy screen. Whilst the boundary treatment would continue to provide some protection at ground floor level, it would afford no meaningful screening from the elevated vantage point of the proposed first floor. I have also considered the appellant's suggestion that a condition requiring retention of the boundary hedging and fencing to a height of 1.7 metres could address this concern, but for the same reasons such a condition would not adequately mitigate the harm identified. 12. I have also had regard to the appellant’s contention that it would be possible to remove that boundary treatment without planning permission and create open views into the adjacent gardens from the appeal property’s garden area. However, I give limited weight to this argument as there is no evidence before me that there is Appeal Decision 6005310 3 a reasonable prospect of this occurring to the extent it would reasonably provide any justification for the proposal and harm identified; to remove the hedge would be as harmful to the appeal property as it would the adjacent gardens and, therefore, in my view an unlikely scenario. 13. The appellant has referred to appeal Ref: APP/D0840/W/25/3366929, suggesting that a similar condition as imposed in that case requiring obscure glazing to certain windows could address privacy concerns in this appeal. However, this other appeal is not directly comparable as, based on the information before me, it related to only two specific non-habitable bathroom windows at first floor level that faced towards the affected neighbour. In this case, the harm would arise from the elevated vantage point created by the first floor as a whole, from which harmful overlooking to Nos 82, 84 and 88 would occur from multiple rooms that would primarily serve as habitable rooms. 14. Therefore, and having regard to the site-specific circumstances in this case, a glazing condition as proposed would need to apply to all or substantially all upper floor windows on the front and rear of the proposed extension to be effective. This could deprive those habitable rooms of any meaningful outlook, contrary to the principles of good design and adequate residential amenity. I am, therefore, not satisfied that the suggested condition would be reasonable having regard to the potential adverse effect on the future occupiers of the proposed first floor rooms and give it limited weight in this decision. 15. To conclude, the proposed development would result in an unacceptable loss of privacy and harmful overlooking of the rear gardens of Nos 82, 84 and 88 Roseland Gardens to the detriment of the living conditions of the occupiers of those properties. The proposal would thereby conflict with Policies 1 and 12 of the Cornwall Local Plan Strategic Policies 2010–2030, Policy C1 of the Climate Emergency Development Plan Document 2023 and guidance relating to amenity within the Cornwall Design Guide 2021, which seek to deliver sustainable development and ensure, amongst other things, that proposals protect the wellbeing of individuals to protect them and their property from overlooking and unreasonable loss of privacy. The proposal would also be contrary to Paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which seeks to secure development that has a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. Other Matters 16. I note the appellant contends that the design of the proposal would improve the visual appearance and carbon efficiency of the appeal property, and that the development would provide the appellants with additional family accommodation. However, achieving good and sustainable design is a standard requirement for development, and whilst I acknowledge the personal benefits to the appellants, these do not provide any justification for the extent of harm identified in this case, which would adversely affect several adjacent properties. 17. The appellant has indicated that the property retains its full range of permitted development rights, and that various alterations to the roof structure, including dormer extensions, could be undertaken as a fallback without requiring a planning application. However, the existence of a potential permitted development fallback does not reduce the harm caused by the scheme as proposed, and each Appeal Decision 6005310 4 application must be assessed on its own merits. Nor is there any evidence before me that demonstrates whether implementation of permitted development rights would have a comparable impact to the appeal proposal. I, therefore, attribute limited weight to a potential permitted development fallback in this decision. 18. Representations have also raised concerns about the loss of a bungalow and the impact on the character of the area, which is predominantly single-storey properties. Concerns have also been raised regarding overshadowing of neighbouring properties, construction noise and disturbance, highway safety and parking. However, the Council did not find any harm in these respects, and I have no reason to reach a different conclusion or consider these aspects further in this decision. 19. Finally, the appellant contends that the proposal benefits from the presumption in favour of sustainable development at paragraph 11(c) of the Framework. However, for the reasons set out in this decision, I have found the proposal conflicts with the development plan in a material respect and the presumption does not apply in this case. Conclusion 20. For the reasons stated, and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed. N Perrins INSPECTOR