Extensions to existing dwelling including two storey side extension, single storey side and front extension, front roof extension, detached double garage and replacement double garage with store

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 9 July 2026 by Elizabeth Lawrence BTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 29 July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6009758 Carne Crest, Trenance, Mawgan Porth, Newquay, TR8 4BZ • 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 Dr and Mrs Mann against the decision of Cornwall Council. • The application Ref is PA25/07846. • The development proposed is extensions to existing dwelling including two storey side extension, single storey side and front extension, front roof extension, detached double garage and replacement double garage with store. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The first main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The second main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of Sunnyside with particular regard to visual impact. Reasons Character and appearance 3. The hillside the appeal dwelling is located within is characterised by individual and rows of predominantly traditionally designed dwellings which face the coast and are seen within an against the soft landscaped coastal setting of the hillside. Much of the locality is within a locally designated Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV) and this includes part of the rear garden to the appeal site. Many of the dwellings appear to have been extended and in more recent years a range of contemporary buildings have been introduced. These have blended into the landscape with varying degrees of success, depending on their siting, size, design, appearance and landscaping. 4. The appeal property occupies a prominent position within an informal and undulating row of individually designed dwellings built into the hillside facing the coast and Mawgan Porth beach. The appeal dwelling occupies an elevated position above the private lane and parking area to the front of the dwelling. 5. The dwelling comprises a traditionally designed older dormer bungalow that has been enlarged and altered over the years. To the front it has a central projecting gable and balcony at first floor level and to the rear it has a deep projecting two storey wing with a half hipped roof. At ground floor level there is a large expanse of Appeal Decision 6009758 2 glazing on the front elevation and to the rear of the dwelling the accommodation is largely served by rooflights. Other than the front gable, the gable walls have half hips which soften the appearance of the dwelling. 6. To one side the appeal dwelling sits alongside and slightly forward of the dwelling at Sala-dan, which is a traditionally designed older bungalow. On the opposite side is a modest sized traditionally designed bungalow, (Sunnyside), which sits forward and at a materially lower level to the appeal dwelling. All three dwellings have parking areas fronting the lane and all of the garages have flat roofs. At the opposite end of the row of dwellings are two large contemporary dwellings with flat roofs. 7. Paragraphs 8, 11 & 131 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (the Framework), promote sustainable development. Good design is seen as a key aspect of sustainable development. Paragraphs 129, 135, 139 and 187 of the Framework require developments to be sympathetic to local character and history, including the built environment, valued landscapes and landscape setting, whilst optimising the potential of a site and not preventing appropriate innovation or change. The intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside should be recognised and the character of the undeveloped coast should be maintained. Decisions should minimise the impacts on and provide net gains for biodiversity. Development that is not well designed should be refused, especially where it fails to reflect local design policies. 8. Consistent with this, policies 1, 2 and 12 of the Cornwall Local Plan Strategic Polices 2010-2030 (CLP) and Policy C1 (7) of the Cornwall Climate Emergency Development Plan Document 2023 (DPD), collectively support sustainable development. They seek to conserve and enhance Cornwall’s natural and historic environment and increase natural and built distinctiveness. Proposals should be of a high quality and demonstrate an understanding of their location. CLP Policy 23 states that proposals should be of an appropriate scale, mass and design that recognises and respects landscape character of both designated and un- designated landscapes. 9. Together and amongst other things, paragraphs 3.1.2, 3.1.3, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 4.2.5 and 4.2.6 of the Cornwall Design Guide (CDG), advise that to maintain Cornwall’s distinctiveness proposals should contribute to a sense of place. They should respond to local context, sustaining distinctive roof forms, heights, materials, urban grain and densities. They should enhance and feel part of the existing settlement and landscape. 10. The proposed front and side first/two storey flat roofed extensions would be linked, creating a wrap around extension that would sit well above the eaves lines and short distance below the ridge lines of the main dwelling and the rear projecting wing. Together the linked extensions would appear top heavy and poorly proportioned. The resultant side elevations and the relationship between the side extension and the rear projecting wing would appear particularly jarring and awkward. These extensions would fail to relate satisfactorily to the host dwelling, the immediately adjacent dwellings, the street scene and the surrounding area. It would have an urbanising impact which would materially detract from the local coastal and countryside landscape. Appeal Decision 6009758 3 11. The extensions on both sides of the dwelling would project very close to the boundary of the site, leaving little space for soft landscaping. This would materially add to the urbanising impact of the proposal and the harm that it would cause to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. This includes close views from and around the unadopted lane and in more distant views from the beach, the coastal path, Tredragon Road and the B3276, where the upper part of the dwelling is visible. 12. Whilst not specifically referred to in the council’s delegated report the reason for refusal refers to the proposed scheme as a whole, which includes the new garages and parking area. The proposed garages would sit at a low level within the street scene and would have ‘green’ grass planted roofs. In themselves they would blend in with the street scene. 13. However, as part of the overall scheme the proposed garages and parking/access arrangements would be seen against the backcloth of the extended dwelling and a large wall of stone cladding stretching up to the ground floor of the host dwelling. Much of the soft landscaping to the front and sides of the property would be removed and the site would appear visually hard and over-intensively developed. I appreciate that the proposed garages would have green roofs which would be planted with grass and there would be a low planter to the rear of the outside parking. However, I am far from convinced that this would satisfactorily mitigate the overdeveloped hard and urban appearance of the appeal proposal. 15. During my appeal site visit I noted three large dwellings at the end of the unadopted lane, two of which have flat roofs. These dwellings occupy particularly large plots and so enjoy spacious settings with ample room for soft landscaping. The other dwellings along this stretch of the lane benefit from generous areas of soft landscaping within their gardens. Bearing in mind this cluster of dwellings is situated on the edge of the built-up area and adjoins the open countryside and AGLV, such planting helps provide a soft transition between the built and natural environment. 16. Finally, reference has been made to the Regulation 14 draft Mawgan-in-Pydar Neighbourhood Plan (MNP) and associated Design Code. Currently little weight can be given to the MNP, although I note that one of the aims is to protect the landscape, local character and biodiversity. 17. I conclude on the first main issue that the proposal would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area. It conflicts with CLP Policies 1, 2, 12 & 23, DPD Policy C1 (7), CDG Paragraphs 3.1.2, 3.1.3, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 4.2.5 and 4.2.6 and paragraph 135 of the Framework. Living conditions 18. The proposed front and single storey side extensions would occupy an elevated position close to the side boundary with Sunnyside. When viewed from the side window and front/side gardens and sitting out area at Sunnyside, the resultant appeal dwelling would be prominent and oppressive. Due to their proximity and size the proposed garage /store and the tall wall to the rear of the garages would add to the oppressive and overbearing impact of the appeal proposal. Due to the proposed siting of tall fences and/or slatted screens along the sides of the balconies the level of overlooking from the resultant dwelling would be largely Appeal Decision 6009758 4 limited to the front garden at Sunnyside. Notwithstanding this the actual and perceived sense of being overlooked from the proposed balconies and adjacent acces steps, together with increase in full height glazing would exacerbate the overbearing impact of the proposal. 19. For these reasons the proposal would cause material harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of Sunnyside, due to its overbearing visual impact. This is not a matter that could be satisfactorily dealt with by conditions. CLP Policy 12 2. a) b) states that proposals should protect individuals and property from overlooking, unreasonable loss of privacy, overshadowing and overbearing impacts. Similarly, CDG paragraph 4.2.6 advises on the interrelationship of buildings meeting the needs and expectation of existing and new residents. 20. I am less concerned regarding loss of daylight/sunlight due to the topography and orientation of both the appeal site and Sunnyside and the lower level of the proposed garage/store. Similarly, whilst the proposed garage store would be sited close to the boundary with Sunnyside, it would replace an existing garage and the entrance to the garage would face the lane. Whilst the proposed number of parking places would be generous, the existing arrangements are similarly generous. A photograph submitted on behalf of a local resident shows several cars parked within the application site. Given the narrow character of the lane, it would be in the interests of highway safety and convenience to include ample parking to meet the needs of the appellants extended family. 21. Concern has also been expressed by the owners of Safa-dan. The appeal dwelling already projects forward of and is taller than the dwelling a Safa-dan. With the proposal the first floor front elevation would project further forward, and the existing hipped roof would be replaced with a two storey flat roof. To the side, the existing single storey extension would be replaced with a flat roofed two storey extension that would project slightly further forward than the existing side extension. 22. As a result of these factors the resultant two storey flank walls would project a material distance forward of the dwelling at Sala-dan. They would be both visually stark and readily visible from the front garden and in the outlook from the adjacent front window of this dwelling. However, this would be partially offset by the open and expansive outlook from the front facing rooms and garden at Sala-dan. Hence, whilst it adds to my concerns regarding the appeal proposal, in itself the impact of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of Safa-dan would not amount to a reason for dismissing this appeal. 23. Regarding noise and disturbance, the resultant dwelling would remain in use as a detached single-family dwelling. Having regard to the existing and proposed size and design of the dwelling, together with the size and siting of the external sitting out areas, the proposal should not result in a materially harmful level of noise and disturbance for the occupiers of nearby dwellings. 24. I conclude on the second main issue that the proposal would unacceptably harm the living conditions of the occupiers of Sunnyside due to its overbearing visual impact. It conflicts with CLP Policy 12 2.a) b) and CDG paragraph 4.2.6. Appeal Decision 6009758 5 Other matters 25. The appellant has stated their objective is to extend and adapt its accommodation to provide multigenerational living with an acute care element for a dependent child. However, no details are provided regarding any specific acute care needs. 26. From my site visit it was apparent that the appellants were primarily living on the first floor and their daughter’s family was living on the ground floor. The proposal includes comparatively few changes on the ground floor, and it would continue to have five bedrooms. The proposed infill and single storey extension would facilitate the provision of a larger bedroom with dressing and shower rooms, a lobby and a snug within the existing dwelling. It is unclear whether any or all these works are required to meet acute care needs. However, even if they were I am far from convinced that the proposed extensions are the only way to provide for such needs. 27. The main driver for the first floor extension is to increase the size of the accommodation and does not appear to be connected to any acute needs. The form, mass and external design and appearance of this element of the proposal materially harms the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. This harm clearly outweighs the benefits for the appellants that would result from the enlarged first floor accommodation and balcony. 28. The proposal is not subject to Biodiversity Net Gain legislation. The bat, barn owl and bird survey undertaken by Wheal Grey Ecology Ltd in May 2025 found no evidence of bats, barn owls or nesting birds within the host dwelling. However, the report does suggest the installation of bat and bird boxes as part of the development to help enhance the biodiversity of the area. This would accord with CLP Policy 23 and paragraph 187 of the Framework. Accordingly, had I found in favour of the appeal proposal this is something that could have been secured through the imposition of a condition. 29. Whilst I note the concerns raised regarding the use of the appeal dwelling for two homes, the proposal is for its use as an extended single dwelling. The change of use of the dwelling to form two dwellings would require full planning permission. As such this is a matter that falls outside the scope of this appeal. Conclusion 30. Having regard to the conclusions on the main issues and all other matters raise the appeal is dismissed. Elizabeth Lawrence INSPECTOR