Appeal 6005975

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the host dwelling and the contribution this makes to the Petersfield Conservation Area; and • the effect of the development on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to light, outlook and privacy.

The appeal site falls within the Petersfield Conservation Area (the ‘CA’). My assessment of this accords with the [name] and Management Plan (April 2017) (the ‘CA character appraisal’) which describes it as a ‘new’ town that was developed from the mid-12th century onwards. The CA encompasses this medieval core, as well as some mainly late 19th century development which followed the establishment of the railway connection in the 1850s.

[address] is located within Character Area 2 of the CA. The CA character appraisal describes Nos 6-44 (even) [address] (which includes the host dwelling) as a terrace of properties built between the 1870’s and 1909 and states that whilst nearly all have lost their original windows, some other historic details remain such as slate roofs, decorative ridge cresting, canted bay windows, panelled timber front doors and original brick frontages.

The rear of this terrace is characterised by single storey rear outrigger projections, topped with pitched slate roofs. Although these elements have been extended at the appeal site and No [address] (No 44), these additions follow the design cues of the existing built form and have been finished in similar materials.

The proposed extension above the existing rear projection is of a significant scale and would not be subservient to the host dwelling. Furthermore, its roof pitch would be lower than that of the existing terrace, giving it a discordant appearance. As a consequence, its form and scale would harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the contribution it makes to the CA.

Although the development would only be visible from other rear gardens and the windows of neighbouring dwellings, it would nonetheless detract from how the CA heritage asset is experienced from these vantagepoints. I recognise that the scheme would not be publicly visible, but this does not lessen the duty to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the CA, which extends to the front and rear of the dwelling.

The appellant contends that the development at No [address] has set a precedent for the appeal proposal. However, the scale and design of the extension to this property is not comparable to the scheme before me. I have as a consequence considered the appeal on its own merits.

In light of the above, I conclude that the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the contribution it makes to the CA. The scheme would therefore conflict with Policies SD5, SD12, SD15 and SD31 of the South Downs Local Plan 2019, which collectively seek, amongst other things, to respect local character and preserve or enhance the special architectural interest, character and appearance of the CA.

The Framework1 requires that great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks. I also have a duty under Section 245 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 to seek to further the purposes of the National Park. Given that the proposal relates to a rear extension that is not visible from public places I am satisfied that it would leave the natural beauty of the National Park unharmed.

The development would nonetheless not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. This harm would be to a low to moderate level of less than substantial harm. The result is that the duties under the Act to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the CA2, which I have given considerable importance and weight to, would not be met.

Paragraph 212 of the Framework requires that great weight should be attached to the conservation of a designated heritage asset and this is irrespective of the level of harm. In accordance with Paragraph 215 of the Framework, I have weighed this harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset against the public benefits of the proposal including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use.

Although the extension would increase the amount of living space, there is nothing before me to indicate that the renovation is dependent on this or that it is necessary 1 National Planning Policy Framework, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, 12 December 2024 (as amended on 7 February 2025). 2 S72 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. to ensure the ongoing viability of the host dwelling. This outcome of the proposal would therefore only be of private benefit to the appellant. Although there would be a public benefit from local employment during construction, this would be limited given the small scale of the proposed development.

In light of the above, I consider the scheme’s limited public benefit to be outweighed by the harm to the host building and the contribution this makes to the character and appearance of the CA.

The development would extend significantly beyond the neighbouring single storey projection at No [address] to the shared boundary. The scale and location of the proposal would therefore result in it appearing overbearing to the occupants of this dwelling when using their rear garden and harm their outlook.

A first-floor side bedroom window, facing No 44, is proposed. This would directly overlook the property and provide oblique views to a first-floor window on the rear elevation of No 44 which appears to be a habitable room. The consequential loss of privacy would be harmful to the living conditions of occupants of No 44. As the proposed window would be the only window serving the bedroom the loss of privacy could not be addressed by a condition requiring obscure glazing.

A first-floor hall window is also proposed on the south-facing side elevation of the development which would directly overlook the garden at No 40. While this would not serve a habitable room it would still result in a loss of privacy to users of the adjacent garden. However, I recognise that this matter could be adequately mitigated via the imposition of a planning condition requiring this window to be faced with obscure glazing.

Although the proposed development would overshadow the existing single-storey projection at No 44, which includes a window with obscure glazing in the side elevation, this would be limited and not be so harmful to the living conditions of its occupants as to warrant dismissal.

In light of the above, I conclude that the development would be harmful to the living conditions of occupants of No 40 with regard to outlook and privacy. The scheme would therefore conflict with Policies SD5 and SD31 of the South Downs Local Plan 2019, which collectively seek, amongst other things, to ensure that development;- (1) is not overbearing; and (2) has regard to avoiding a harmful impact upon surrounding uses and amenities including privacy.

I also find that the scheme does not accord with Paragraph 135 of the Framework, which seeks, amongst other things, to create places with a high standard of amenity for existing users.

In view of the above, I conclude that the development does not accord with the development plan and that other material considerations do not indicate that the proposal should be determined other than in accordance with this. As a consequence, the appeal should be dismissed.