Appeal 6004671

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, and • whether the proposal would make adequate provision for car and cycle parking.

The appeal site is located within a commercial setting characterised by a cluster of buildings of varying age and scale, all of which exhibit a functional architectural style.

Opportunities for views into the site and the visibility of existing buildings from the wider public realm are largely limited. However, some views are available from parts of the residential development to the south of the site, although the extent of visibility varies seasonally, with intervening trees providing a degree of screening when in leaf. Notwithstanding this limited visibility, the site currently presents as a contained entity with minimal influence on the wider character and appearance of the area, which is residential in nature.

The proposal includes the demolition of an existing derelict building. However, this structure appears to have already been removed. The submitted plans indicate that the former building was of no particular architectural merit. I have not been provided with floor plans of the previous building, nevertheless, the elevation drawings indicate that it was of double height.

The proposed building would occupy a broadly similar location to the previous structure. In terms of its design, it would adopt a functional architectural approach and unlike the building it would replace, and in contrast to the other larger buildings on the site, which are characterised by pitched roof forms, the proposed development would incorporate a flat-roofed appearance. I note that there is some disagreement between the main parties on this point, with the appellant referring to a parapet roof and the National Park Authority (NPA) describing it as flat. Nevertheless, irrespective of this distinction, the submitted plans indicate that the building would read as flat-roofed in visual terms.

The proposed building would infill the gap between two existing structures on the site, with limited space remaining between it and the buildings on either side. It would be appreciably greater in both scale and massing than the previous building and, by reason of its height and width, would result in a more continuous built form when viewed from certain locations within the residential development to the south. This contrasts with the current situation, whereby only the building to the east of the former structure is visible in views from the south.

The resulting continuous built form, when taken together with its functional architectural approach and flat-roofed appearance, would increase the site’s visibility in wider views. As such, it would be at odds with the wider residential character and appearance of the area. Consequently, it would represent a poor and incongruous form of development, giving rise to harm to that character and appearance.

In views from the south, the proposed building, particularly when seen in conjunction with the existing building already evident in those views, would appear as an incongruous and visually discordant addition, failing to respect the prevailing residential character and appearance of the area, and thereby causing unacceptable harm.

Accordingly, the proposal would conflict with Policy SD5 of the South Downs Local Plan 2019 (the Local Plan) and Policy BEP1 of the Petersfield Neighbourhood Plan 2015 (the NP) which, in so far as they are relevant seek high-quality, contextually appropriate design that integrates with its surroundings and enhances character and distinctiveness. These policies are consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (the Framework) Car and cycle parking.

While the appeal site is drawn relatively tightly around the building and its front curtilage, it forms part of a substantially larger site under the appellant’s ownership.

Having walked the site I am satisfied that there would be sufficient space to provide additional facilities for cycle parking and vehicle parking if I were minded to allow the appeal, the provision and design of such could be secured by condition. As such, I am satisfied that the development could be acceptable in highway safety terms and could provide sufficient safe and secure cycle perking so as to encourage the use of active and sustainable modes of transport.

Accordingly, I conclude that the proposal would be in accordance with Policy SD19 and SD22 of the Local Plan, which in so far as they are relevant, require development to be designed to provide cycle parking so as to support the use of sustainable modes of transport, and to provide vehicle parking that serves the needs of that development.

The site is located in the South Downs National Park. 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 be at odds with and harmful to the character and appearance of the area and as such would fail to further the purposes of the National Park.

The economic benefits associated with the provision of modern employment floorspace on previously developed land are acknowledged. However, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the wider area, which is within a designated as a National Landscape. The disbenefits outweigh the combined benefits.

Overall, the proposal would conflict with the development plan when taken as a whole, and there are no material considerations including the Framework, that indicate that a decision should be taken other than in accordance with the