'Mega mansion' at Coverack in Cornwall refusal appeal

Locals had dubbed the plans for Kenyn Peder, at 5 Bounder Treath a "mega mansion" in Coverack.

However, applicants Stuart and Elaine Measham said they wanted to move to the area as a family and believed the proposal was “sensitive” to its surroundings.

Their architects had described the existing property as “outdated and in need of substantial renovation works, due to its sub-standard construction.”

The proposal had been to demolish the existing bungalow, and in its place build a two-storey house comprising four ensuite bedrooms, gym and open planning living area with balcony upstairs, together with a double garage.

The application received 28 public comments on Cornwall Council’s planning portal, all of them objections, and in March an officer from Cornwall Council’s planning department refused permission for the work to take place, under delegated powers.

This week, however, it was confirmed that Mr and Mrs Measham had appealed the decision.

There will now be written statements by both parties and a site visit by a planning inspector, who will determine the appeal.

Can the public respond?

Cornwall Council said that all previous comments submitted as part of the planning process to date had already been forwarded to the Planning Inspectorate and the appellant, unless they were expressly confidential.

These will be considered by the planning inspector when determining the appeal.

However, anyone wanting to make further comments, or modify/withdraw their previous representation, can do so online using the Planning Inspectorate website at https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk

Anyone without access to the internet can send their comments by post to: The Planning Inspectorate, Pana Kwabe Room, Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Bristol, BS1 6PN.

All submissions must be received by August 21, 2024 and must quote the MHCLG appeal reference: APP/D0840/W/24/3344693

What was Cornwall Council’s reasons for refusal?

The planning officer refused the application based on two reasons.

The first was due to the design, which the council said would “fail to respond positively to the local character and distinctiveness in this prominent location when viewed from the highway along the south elevation.”

The decision findings stated: “The proposal is considered to constitute a poor quality form of development, which would fail to take the opportunity for improving the character and quality of the surrounding area and the way it functions, which is designated a Cornwall National Landscape.

“The proposal fails to demonstrate a cultural, physical and aesthetic understanding of its location through the design, massing, use of materials and glazing; the proposal would therefore not conserve or enhance the area and it is considered to conflict with the aims and intentions of policies of the Cornwall Local Plan.”

The south-east elevation of the existing bungalow (top) and the proposed south elevation of the two-storey house (bottom) - not to scale (Image: Laurence Associates/Cornwall Council)

The second reason was one over overlooking, which when “coupled together with the large form of the building, it would lead to an increase in overlooking and sense of overbearing of the of neighbouring dwelling known as 4 Bounder Treath that would have a materially adverse impact on the living conditions currently enjoyed by these occupiers.”

In their report, the council officer said that while the application stated the existing dwelling was "outdated and need of substantial renovation works, due to its sub-standard construction", no specific details had been provided as to the nature of this sub-standard construction, with no evidence of major cracking.

This led the officer to conclude: “It is in need of some renovation works but there is nothing before the council to conclude that the dwelling is unsafe or uninhabitable.”

They went on to say that while the existing bungalow was “of no particular architectural merit,” meaning in principle a replacement building would be acceptable, “the design is critical to this location, which is visible from public viewpoints.”

Due to window positioning, there was some concern that the windows serving the study and WC could lead to some overlooking of the neighbour to the east of the property, with the officer concluding: “Without any form of mitigation, it is considered that this is harmful to the residential amenities of this occupier.”

Local objections

Objectors, including residents of the village, had said they were tired of “people who think Coverack is another branch of Center Parcs for their holidays", declaring: "Enough is enough."

The locals had the support of St Keverne Parish Council members, who after viewing the application put forward a strongly worded letter of objection to Cornwall Council as one of the official consultees, asking “Where is it all going to end for Coverack?”

The parish councillors had described the proposed replacement property as “grossly out of keeping with the others in the cul-de-sac,” adding that it would cause overlooking and loss of privacy for neighbours.