Appeal 6002414

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of one pair of semi detached houses, with associated parking and new shared vehicular access at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/25/1218, subject to the conditions in the attached Schedule.

The Council states that the District Plan Review Examination hearings are due to be resumed. I have not been referred to any specific policies relevant to this appeal and no emerging policies were referred to in the reasons for refusal. In any case, there is no substantive evidence before me in respect of whether there are unresolved objections to the emerging policies and, as such, only minimal weight can be given to the policies within the emerging plan.

A signed [name] dated 24 April 2026 has been submitted during the appeal process. This would secure a financial contribution to mitigate the effect of the development on the Ashdown Forest Special Protection Area (SPA) and Special Area of Conservation (SAC). The Council considers the legal agreement addresses its third reason for refusal and has advised that the reason for refusal is no longer contested. The appeal will be determined on this basis, and I shall return to the legal agreement later in my decision.

The main issues are: • whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the setting of the nearby listed buildings and the character or appearance of the Estcots Conservation Area (CA); • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; and • the effect of the proposed development on the integrity of the Ashdown Forest SPA and SAC.

The appeal site comprises part of the garden associated with the dwelling at No [site address] (No 19). Beyond the rear boundary of the site are the [name] listed buildings at ‘[name] and the ‘Barn at [address] to east of House’. Section 66 (1) of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires special regard be had to the desirability of preserving listed buildings, their setting and any features of special architectural or historic interest which they possess.

[name] dates from the 16th and early 17th centuries and comprises a large two-storey building finished with exposed timber and hanging tiles. The Farmhouse and Barn, together with [address], form part of a historic farmstead. The special interest of these buildings arises in part from their historical and architectural interest, which, despite alterations remain legible and illustrative of their original design. Significance and special interest are also partly derived from the buildings’ historic function and their relationship with [address] mansion.

The buildings making up the former farmstead are accessed via a sunken lane to the rear of 20th century development at [address]. The former farmstead is primarily experienced from the sunken lane and is appreciated within a predominantly verdant rural context with limited views of the modern development to the rear. The rural character of the lane and the farmstead contrasts with the modern, built-up character of development at [address] to the rear of [name], including to either side of the appeal site.

The appeal site was previously associated with [name], and the parties suggest that it may have formed part of a larger walled garden. The site includes early-20th century garden features, including a stone cruciform pond and terrace. The small scale of development at the site allows for views towards the rear roof slopes of [name] and the Barn. Given the historical association of the site with the listed buildings, it makes a positive contribution to their significance. However, the contribution is limited by the position of the site within a large, 20th century residential estate and its more recent association with No 19, which has considerably urbanised this part of the setting of the farmstead.

To the rear of the site, including the listed buildings and the area beyond is the CA, which is partly focussed on [address] mansion and its wider grounds. While the site is not within the CA, its proximity and the visibility of the land and buildings within the CA from [address] mean that the development would be within the setting of the CA.

Paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation.

The proposal is for a pair of semi-detached dwellings fronting [address]. The dwellings would result in the removal of the garden features and would erode the existing open character of the site. In addition, the two-storey scale of the dwellings would reduce views through the site towards the CA and the rear roof slopes of [name] and the Barn. While the dwellings would not be visible from the area to the front of the farmhouse due to the considerable changes in land levels, the dwellings would be viewed from the upper floor rear-facing windows of the farmhouse. However, visibility is not analogous to harm, and the proposal would primarily be seen within the context of the considerable existing modern development surrounding the site and the listed buildings, including development at [address] and [address].

The development would encroach upon the setting of the heritage assets, in particular the listed buildings of [name] and the Barn, primarily through the loss of views towards the farmstead from [address]. Nonetheless, the presence of modern development either side of the site would limit the harm that would arise from the partial loss of these views. Consequently, the proposal would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of the heritage assets, albeit the level of harm would be at the lower end of the scale.

The impact in relation to the CA as a whole would be minor and given the extent of the CA and the limited scale of the proposal, would also be at the lower end of the less than substantial scale. That said, such harm to each of the designated heritage assets would not equate to less than substantial importance and weight; indeed, I attach considerable importance and weight to these harms. In accordance with Paragraph 215 of the Framework, the harm identified needs to be weighed against the public benefits of the scheme.

There is no dispute that the Council cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites that is required by the Framework. The proposal would provide two dwellings making a positive contribution to housing supply with associated social and economic benefits during the period of construction and once the dwellings are occupied. The Framework explains that small and medium sized sites can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement of an area and are often built-out relatively quickly. Cumulatively, these important benefits would outweigh the harm that would be caused to the significance of the listed buildings and the CA as designated heritage assets.

I conclude that the proposal would preserve the setting of the nearby listed buildings and the character and appearance of the CA. The development therefore accords with Policies DP34 and DP35 of the Mid Sussex District Plan 2018 (MSDP) and Policy EG4 of the [site address] Neighbourhood Plan 2016 (NP), which, amongst other things, collectively require development to protect listed buildings and their settings and conserve or enhance the CA’s special character, appearance and the range of activities which contribute to it. The proposal would also meet the expectations of the historic environment policies of the Framework, as set out above.

The site comprises the side garden of No 19 and forms a gap in the built form on one side of [address]. Development in the area is typically set back from the road within defined rows and comprises predominantly two-storey dwellings. While the set back position of dwellings in the area creates a sense of spaciousness, the buildings are close together, limiting views through sites to the rear.

The proposal would consist of two-storey, semi-detached dwellings fronting [address]. The dwellings would be positioned broadly in line with development either side and the open frontage would emulate the predominantly open frontages of properties in the area. The development would partly fill the gap between No 19 and No [address] (No 17) but would retain space either side and would allowing views through to the rear of the site.

The dwellings would have a stepped rise in ridge heights to reflect the increase in land levels from No 19 to No [address]. While the dwellings would be large, the staggered ridge height and hipped roof would break up the overall mass and scale of the buildings. The central positioning of the dwellings with space retained to the sides would ensure that the proposal would not appear cramped or discordant with the prevailing pattern of development in the area.

The dwellings would be finished with red brick and horizontal boarding beneath a plain tile roof. Gables would project forward from the elevation fronting [address] and would have a central glazed section. The dwellings would differ from the design and material finish of existing development. However, forward projecting gables are prevalent on dwellings opposite the site, whilst the material finish such as the horizontal boarding is used in the locality. The boarding would also partly reflect the material finish of the farmstead buildings to the rear of the site.

I conclude that the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the area. The development therefore accords with Policy DP26 of the MSDP and Policy EG3 of the NP, which, amongst other things, collectively require development to be of a high quality design and layout and the form of the proposed development is proportionate and in keeping with the scale, height, materials and site coverage of the surrounding area.

Policy DP17 of the MSDP and Policy EG16 of the NP highlight that mitigation measures are necessary to counteract the effects of a potential increase in recreational pressure and are required for developments resulting in a net increase in dwellings within a 7km Zone of Influence (ZoI) of the Ashdown Forest SPA and SAC. The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 requires me as the decision maker to undertake an Appropriate Assessment where there are likely significant effects from the proposal, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects, on the integrity of the sites.

It has been established that residential development within the ZoI would likely result in harm to the protected area through additional recreational disturbance. The proposal would create a net gain of dwellings and in combination with other developments permitted in the area there would be a likely significant effect on the integrity of the SPA and the SAC.

A Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG) and [name] and Monitoring (SAMM) mitigation approach has been developed and agreed with Natural England. These require the provision of a SANG, either on the development site itself or through a financial contribution to a strategic SANG elsewhere, and a separate financial contribution towards a SAMM strategy.

The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) on Appropriate Assessment indicates that any measures used to inform the decision about the effects on integrity need to be sufficiently secured and likely to work in practice. The appellant has submitted a signed UU, under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 that would ensure a payment towards the mitigation strategy that is acceptable to the Council. Therefore, taking into consideration the submitted UU which would mitigate the proposed development, I conclude that the proposal would not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the SPA and the SAC.

In this way harmful effects would be prevented. As a result, following an Appropriate Assessment, the proposal would not adversely affect the integrity of the SPA. There would therefore be no conflict with Policy DP17 of the MSDP and Policy EG16 of the NP, as set out above.

Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) (the Act) introduced a statutory framework for biodiversity net gain (BNG). Under the statutory framework, subject to some exceptions, every grant of planning permission is deemed to have been granted subject to the [name] (BGC), which requires that at least a 10% increase in biodiversity value is met.

It is proposed that the BGC would be met primarily through off-site measures, including off-site credit units. The Council has not raised any concerns with this approach. If the 10% net gain could not be achieved onsite, the purchase of credits, or an agreement with a relevant off-site provider, would need to be secured through a planning obligation. Such an obligation could form part of the Biodiversity Gain Plan required by the deemed condition. Therefore, granting planning permission without a formal mechanism in place, to secure off-site gains or credits, would not affect the Council’s ability to ensure that the BNG objective is achieved at a later stage.

The development would have windows within the side elevations serving the stairs in both dwellings. The windows would face towards the neighbouring dwellings, including No 17 and No 19. Nevertheless, given the position of the windows relative to the adjacent properties and the change in land levels, the windows would not result in harmful overlooking that would result in a loss of privacy for occupants of those dwellings.

Concerns have also been raised in respect of a loss of privacy for occupants of properties on the opposite side of [address]. The front elevations of properties opposite the site would be visible from the proposed dwellings. However, given that the separation distance and the open frontages of the existing properties, the development would not result in a harmful loss of privacy over and above the overlooking that could take place from the public realm.

[address] has parking restrictions, including double yellow lines. While the proposed development would increase vehicle movements, including during the construction period, the development would include onsite parking and would not be of a scale that would generate a significant increase in vehicle movements on the local highway network.

In front of the existing boundary fence is a ‘Meridian marker’, which appears to be within the appeal site. The status of the marker is unclear and there is no substantive evidence before me that demonstrates that the marker is a designated heritage asset or a highway sign. Nonetheless, its position would appear to be to the side of the proposed entrance within a grassed area, and therefore it would be unaffected by the proposal.

A previous appeal was dismissed at the site. However, no details have been presented that details the nature of the proposal and I therefore cannot make a reasonable comparison with the scheme before me. In any event, each proposal should be considered on its individual merits and with appropriate regard to the development plan and any material considerations.

There is no dispute that the Council cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites that is required by the Framework. Paragraph 11. d) i. of the Framework indicates that permission should be granted unless the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for refusing the development proposed. Footnote 7 of the Framework details that this includes policies relating to designated heritage assets. However, given my finding in respect of the effect of the proposal on the designated heritage assets, this does not provide a strong reason for refusing the development proposed.

Paragraph 11 d) ii. of the Framework indicates that permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes, individually or in combination.

The proposal would make a positive contribution to housing supply and delivery with associated social and economic benefits during the period of construction and once the dwellings are occupied. This is particularly the case given the Council’s housing supply position. The Framework explains that small and medium sized sites can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement of an area and are often built-out relatively quickly. The addition of two dwellings through a more efficient use of land in an urban area and the associated benefits would make a small but important contribution to meeting housing need in the District.

Given the weight in favour of the proposal due to the delivery of housing, the adverse impacts would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies of the Framework taken as a whole.

Suggested planning conditions have been provided by the Council. I have considered the conditions having regard to the Framework and advice contained in the PPG. I have adjusted the wording of some conditions to improve precision.

In addition to the standard time limit condition, I have imposed Condition 2 requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans. This is in the interests of certainty.

Conditions 3 and 4 are necessary to control surface water run-off to minimise the risk of flooding and to provide suitable means of foul water drainage. [name] 3 would affect the early stages of construction, it needs to be discharged prior to the commencement of the development.

To provide suitable parking for future occupants and appropriate cycle storage facilities, Conditions 5 and 6 are reasonable and necessary. Condition 7 is necessary to safeguard ecology at the site.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing numbers 25 - J4738 - 01 – 001, 24 - J4738 - 01 – 002, 24 - J4738 - 01 – 003, 24 - J4738 - 02 – 001 and 24 - J4738 - 05 - 001.

The development hereby permitted shall not commence until details of the proposed foul and surface water drainage and means of disposal have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. No building shall be occupied until all the approved drainage works have been carried out in accordance with the approved details. The details shall include a timetable for its implementation and a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development which shall include arrangements for adoption by any public authority or statutory undertaker and any other arrangements to secure the operation of the scheme throughout its lifetime. Maintenance and management during the lifetime of the development should be in accordance with the approved details.

The development hereby permitted shall not connect any surface water drainage to public sewers (directly or indirectly) until confirmation of capacity existing within the network from the sewage provider has been submitted to and acknowledged in writing by the local planning authority.

No part of the development shall be first occupied until the car parking has been constructed in accordance with the approved site plan. These spaces shall thereafter be retained at all times for their designated purpose.

No part of the development shall be first occupied until covered and secure cycle parking spaces have been provided in accordance with plans and details to be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority.

The development hereby permitted shall be undertaken in accordance with the [name] within section 6.18 of the submitted ecological report ([name], April 2025). End of Schedule