Appeal 3347249

The appeal is dismissed.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was revised on 12th December 2024. However, I am satisfied that any changes to the Framework have not prejudiced any party in this case. Consequently, in reaching my decision I have therefore had regard to the new Framework published in December 2024, and any reference to Paragraph numbers are to this version.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

‘ [site address] ’ is a residential dwelling located in the South Downs National Park near to the settlement of Hurstpierpoint to the eastern side of [site address] . The host dwelling plot has two existing dilapidated outbuildings that would be replaced to the southern end of the appeal site by a traditional style pitched workshop/store that would have a kitchen garden and lawn to the front.

The footprint of the proposal would be smaller than an extant permission1 on the appeal site for a mono pitch timber building. However, consideration of whether a development is ‘materially larger’ is not restricted solely to floorspace. There are other considerations which depend on the circumstances of the case. 1 SDNP/23/02923/HOUS.

In this case, the pitched roofed timber and brick development would be higher than the mono pitch roof of the extant permission. It would also have elongated southern and northern elevations. As such, the proposed development would be of some considerable height, mass and breadth that would appear to be disproportionate to the host dwelling and the buildings it would replace.

Moreover, while constructed in traditional style materials similar to buildings found on ‘[address]’ and at ‘Hautboyes’, the fact remains that the proposed development would be located adjacent to the public highway on a relatively elevated plot. Therefore, in comparison to the lower mono-pitch building, and notwithstanding the blank elevation of the building facing the lane, the development would appear as a highly prominent and bulky structure to those travelling along [site address] to Hurstpierpoint or other areas in the SNDP. Landscaping would not be adequate mitigation.

I conclude therefore, that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area.

Accordingly, the proposal would not meet the aims of Policies SD4, SD5, and SD6 of the South Downs Local Plan 2014-2031 (2019) which says, amongst other things, that development will only be permitted where it utilises architectural design which is appropriate and sympathetic to its setting in terms of height, massing, density, roof form, materials, night and day visibility, elevational and, where relevant, vernacular detailing.

The Grade I listed ‘[address]’ is located to the southeast of the appeal site and is accessed via a track leading from [site address] . However, as the dwelling and the public footpath on ‘Danny Park Drive’ is relatively distant to the proposal there would be a neutral effect on the setting of the listed building.

The proposal would be constructed in sustainable, local materials. There would also be rainwater harvesting, new planting, habitats and hedging associated with the scheme. I afford this limited weight. The appellant also contends that the revised development would be more attractive than the mono-pitched building, which remains his ‘fall-back’ position. In addition, Hurstpierpoint Parish Council and ‘Friends of the South Downs’ have not objected to the scheme. Nonetheless, even in combination, these matters do not outweigh the substantial harm to the character and appearance to the area I have found above.

The proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area, and as there are no material considerations of sufficient weight to indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan and the Framework, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.