Appeal 6001126

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs was made by [name] & [name] against South Downs National Park Authority. This application is the subject of a separate

The planning application was submitted retrospectively. I have dealt with the appeal accordingly. Notwithstanding that the development has already taken place I have dealt with the appeal on the merits of the appeal scheme before me.

The main issue is the effect of the appeal scheme on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site is within the South Downs National Park (the SDNP) and lies close to the northern edge of an enclave of residential built development located within wider open countryside to the south-west of Haslemere.

[address] residential estate contains different ‘arms’ of built development resulting in a mix of dwelling layouts, designs and outbuildings. In respect of the latter, I acknowledge that some are constructed from timber and/or are sited closer to the road than the appeal scheme. However, I have not been provided with details of their individual planning history, and it is reasonably likely that, given the age of the estate, some would have been constructed prior to the establishment of the SDNP and the associated stricter controls over new development associated with the great weight attached by the National Planning Policy Framework 2025 (the Framework) to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks.

Moreover, in considering the merits of the appeal scheme I have had regard to the character of the specific area of the estate within which the property is located. The appeal property comprises a semi-detached two-storey house with brick walls under a clay tiled pitched roof. It forms an integral part of a group of similarly designed semi-detached houses on the south side of [address]. These all lie within long plots whereby they are set well-back from the road frontage, whilst also incorporating generous rear gardens.

A consistency of dwelling design and a regular linear positioning in relation to the street contribute positively to the prevailing character and appearance of the area. Moreover, the deep frontages of the properties, including that of the appeal site, make an important contribution to the spacious layout of development which reflects the position of the dwellings on the edge of a built enclave of houses sited within the wider open countryside.

This spacious layout is not significantly diminished by the presence of mature landscaping and fencing along some property boundaries. Nor does the use of some front garden areas for hard-surface parking in connection with the dwellings significantly alter the established layout of development or reduce the perception of openness to the front of the dwellings. As a result, this part of the road has a notably semi-rural quality, which differs from that of some of the more densely developed housing areas to the south and east of the site.

The appeal scheme introduces an incongruous built structure to the front of the dwelling, which is out of character with, and detrimentally erodes, the existing open and spacious character of this part of the townscape. Due to its position close to the front wall of the house and the side boundary of the site, the garage results in an unduly cramped form of built development which would be out of keeping with the aforesaid spacious nature of development along this part of the road.

Moreover, the position of the garage directly in front of the existing dwelling, where it obscures part of the principal front elevation of the building, means that it appears harmfully visually intrusive and at odds with the street scene of the group of houses within which it is sited, where frontage buildings do not feature.

This positioning is at odds with Paragraph 7.94 of the supporting text to Policy SD31: Extensions to [name] and Provision of Annexes and Outbuildings of the South Downs Local Plan (2019) (the Local Plan), which requires outbuildings to be sensitively sited to the side or rear of the host dwelling and for garages to be of an appropriate design which is not intrusive upon the local area, remains subordinate to and does not detract from the character and appearance of the main dwelling.

The incongruous nature of the appeal scheme is also compounded by a use of timber boarding for the walls and felt for the roof which would be strongly at odds with the prevailing brick and tiles used in the construction of the host property and its immediate neighbours.

Whilst it is acknowledged that timber is a sustainable building material, this alone does not justify its use for the appeal scheme, in a position where it is noticeably out of keeping with the prevailing materials which characterise this part of the street. Moreover, I am not persuaded based on the evidence before me, that the Council’s Ecosystems Services Statement requirements are not capable of being met if more substantial and appropriate materials are used for the garage.

Whilst the structure is largely screened in some views from the public realm by hedging within along the appeal site boundaries and within the front garden, I cannot be certain that the existing mature soft landscaping would remain in perpetuity, and the presence of existing landscaping is not a reason to allow development that is unacceptable.

As such, the appeal scheme results in an unduly visually prominent and discordant addition which comprises an incongruous feature within the street scene. It relates poorly to the host property and comprises a more cramped form of built development than is characteristic of the site frontages in this part of [address]. Accordingly, it significantly erodes the space in front of the existing dwelling, thereby materially harming the open and spacious nature of this part of the road. It is not, therefore, sympathetic to the surrounding built environment, to the detriment of the visual amenities of the townscape and the wider landscape character of the SDNP.

For the above reasons, I therefore conclude that the appeal scheme causes significant harm to the character and appearance of the area. As such, it is contrary to Local Plan policies SD1, SD4, SD5 and SD31. These policies, collectively and amongst other things, aim to ensure that new development is of a high-quality design which respects local distinctiveness and that new outbuildings respect the established character of the local area.

For similar reasons, the appeal scheme is also contrary to Policies of the Framework which seek to achieve well-designed places and conserve and enhance the natural environment as set out in Chapters 12 and 15.

The garage provides parking for the appellant and contains electric vehicle charging facilities. However, I am not persuaded by the evidence before me that the existing garage is necessary to provide these facilities having regard to the existing availability of on-site parking and nearby off-site parking.

Moreover, whilst no harm arises to neighbour living conditions, this is a requirement of such development in any case. As such this does not justify the development or outweigh the harm I have identified in respect of the main issue.

The development conflicts with the adopted development plan when considered as a whole, and there are no material considerations, including the Framework, that indicate that the proposal should be determined other than in accordance with the

For the above reasons, I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.