Appeal 6001142

The appeal is dismissed.

My attention has been drawn to 2 previously dismissed appeal decisions1 for the residential redevelopment of the appeal. I have had regard to those decisions only insofar as it is relevant to my assessment of the main issue in this case.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the appeal site and area including the South Downs National Park (SDNP).

The site includes a parcel of land that has been allocated for 2 dwellings under Policy H6(B) of the Rogate and Rake Neighbourhood Plan August 2021 (RRNP). Although the appeal site extends marginally beyond the boundary of the allocation, a previous appeal decision has established that the inclusion of additional land is not inherently problematic and could be advantageous where it enables a well-designed scheme that successfully incorporates any important trees2. Moreover, subject to compliance with the wider Development Plan, the National Park Authority (NPA) accepts the principle of the residential development of the site.

The site sits within a predominantly residential area that retains a distinctly rural character. Aside from the [site address] [address] to the northeast and the former [name] to the southwest, now a dwelling, the immediate surroundings comprise small-scale, linear development with a closely knit pattern and traditional 1 APP/Y9507/W/23/3328273 and APP/Y9507/W/22/3301038 2 APP/Y9507/W/22/3301038 architectural style. Within the wider village, this pattern becomes more varied, with larger properties set within more generous plots.

The site is located on the edge of Rake Village to the north of [site address] and comprises a wide undeveloped parcel of land that is screened by mature vegetation and established hedgerows. The site is mostly overgrown grassland and scrub, and contains several trees of varying age, species, and condition. It occupies an elevated position relative to the road and is set behind a grass verge and an established hedgerow.

The appeal proposal would comprise two detached dwellings sharing a vehicular access from the highway. In terms of layout, the two dwellings would be separated by a central hard‐landscaped and engineered parking area for 5 vehicles. This arrangement, and the degree of spacing created by the parking area, would depart from the more closely knit pattern of development that characterises the immediate area. Although the dwellings would be set within landscaped grounds, the extent of hard surfacing would remain visually dominant and would not be sufficiently softened or broken up by planting. The resulting expanse of engineered surfacing would read as a feature more typical of a suburban development than of a rural setting, where softer, more informal arrangements generally prevail.

Both dwellings would be two storeys in height and would present front-facing gables towards [site address] . Each property would have a relatively low eaves height, which would assist in limiting their overall mass and perceived height, ensuring that the buildings would not appear unduly bulky within the street scene.

Although the architectural language, including traditional materials and simple gabled forms, reflects nearby development and responds appropriately to the local vernacular, the proposed layout is unacceptable. The appeal proposal would create a car‐dominated, hard‐landscaped environment that appears incongruous and visually assertive, failing to integrate with its rural setting.

While a landscaping condition could require the introduction of new planting, the prominent and central position of the parking court means that any such planting would do little to soften its engineered appearance or materially reduce its visual dominance. Moreover, additional landscaping would not overcome the more fundamental concern arising from the degree of separation created between the two dwellings, which is at odds with the tighter knit pattern of development in the locality. As such, landscaping would not adequately mitigate the identified harm.

Section 11A of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 (as amended) places a statutory duty on the decision-maker to seek to further the purposes of the National Park. These purposes are to conserve and enhance its natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage, and to promote opportunities for the public to understand and enjoy its special qualities.

The appeal proposal would create a car‐dominated, hard‐landscaped form of development that would appear incongruous and visually assertive and would fail to integrate with its rural setting. It would therefore cause harm to the character and appearance of the appeal site and area including the SDNP. The appeal proposal is therefore contrary to Policies SD1 (Sustainable Development), SD4 ([name]) and SD5 (Design) of the South Downs Local Plan (2019), and Policy BE1 ([name]) of the Rogate and Rake Neighbourhood Development Plan (2021) and, [name] 4 (Landscape and views) and Liss 9 (The design of Development) of the Liss Neighbourhood Plan (2017). These policies require development to conserve and enhance the SDNP’s natural beauty, landscape, character, wildlife and cultural heritage, and to be landscape led, well-designed, and informed by local character, settlement pattern and context.

The National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (the Framework) advises that great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and National Landscapes which have the highest status of protection in relation to these issues. For the reasons cited above the appeal proposal would fail to conserve and enhance the landscape and scenic beauty of the SDNP.

The appeal site lies within the setting of The Sun Inn, a [name] listed building, formerly a public house and now converted into a residential use. The proposal would introduce additional built form to the north side of the road bringing development closer to, and opposite, the listed building. This would not impact views of the listed building, nor would it diminish or dominate its established presence within the street scene. Accordingly, the proposal would have a neutral effect on the setting of The Sun Inn and would therefore preserve it.

The site falls within the vicinity of the of the Wealden Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA) including the Woolmer Forest Special Area of Conservation (SAC) (more than 400m and within the 5km buffer). I have a duty under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 to assess any impact the proposed development would have upon the designated sites identified. However, as I am dismissing the appeal for the reasons given above, I do not need to conduct any further assessment.

The appeal proposal includes the provision of a footpath along the western boundary of the site connecting [site address] to the Village Hall to the rear of the site. Policy H6 of the RRNP directs that such a footpath should be secured via a planning obligation, no obligation has been provided. Notwithstanding, as I am dismissing the appeal for the reasons given above, I do not need to consider this matter further.

The appeal proposal would deliver two market dwellings, which is attributed modest weight, and would generate some economic benefits through a limited increase in population and associated expenditure within the village and neighbouring settlements, this is a matter to which I attach limited weight. The appeal proposal would secure landscaping and biodiversity net gains; these are matters to which modest weight is attribute. However, as set out above, the appeal proposal would appear car dominated and hard-landscape-led, and would fail to reflect the tighter knit grain of development that characterises the immediate area. This would result in an incongruous and visually assertive form of development that would not integrate successfully with its rural context. I give greater weight to the harm and conflicts I have identified.

Accordingly, the proposal would be contrary to the development plan when taken as a whole, and no other material considerations, including the Framework indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it.

For the reasons given, the appeal is dismissed.