Appeal 6006354

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue raised by this appeal is whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Hurstpierpoint Conservation Area (the CA).

The CA along the western side of [address] is characterised by semi-detached and detached period dwellings of similar form and scale. The property is one half of a handed pair of late 19th/early 20th century villas typical of the period and style of development within this part of the recently extended CA. The architecture and historic value of the locality are characteristics that make this area special and worthy of CA status. This provides the CA a distinctive quality to both the character and appearance and gives this area architectural significance. The property retains a number of attractive period features, such as its original roof form, and makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area. The appeal property falls within the CA and, therefore, forms part of its significance.

The roof dormers would be large additions at the top of the property. Little of the original roof profile would be retained. As such, the design of the roof dormers would be out of scale and character with the original roof scape. This would detract from the contribution the property makes to the character and appearance of the area. Consequently, the proposal would represent an unsympathetic addition to the roof of this property and would be visually harmful for this reason. The roof dormers would be clearly visible at the rear of the property and notably in public views from [address] and the public right of way that runs along it and beyond.

I saw that the adjoining property, No.[address], has had similar dormer roof additions to that proposed at No. [site address] . The local planning authority indicate that those roof extensions benefit from a certificate of lawful development that was approved prior to the extension of the [name] designation.

I have also been directed to a more recent planning permission at No.[address] where a rear dormer has been granted. However, from information provided by the local planning authority that development would be less visible from the street scene than this proposal and would be seen in context with a neighbouring dormer. It was considered that that development would be unlikely to be harmful to the existing character of the area. Notwithstanding this, that development is some distance from the site. The considerations pertaining to that proposal will be different to that of the proposal that is before me.

The appellants contend that there are many box style dormers along [address] and this is an established feature of the development within the CA and forms part of the character of the area. However, other than at No.150, I have not been directed to any other examples close by. In any event the existence of other roof dormers, even if erected post CA designation, does not overcome the harm I have identified resulting from the proposed development or provide justification for further visually harmful development within the CA. The proposal would undermine the purposes of the CA designation.

Given the size and scale of the proposal in the CA, I consider there would be less than substantial harm to the character or appearance of the CA. In accordance with paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (the Framework), I must weigh the harm against the public benefits of the proposal. The proposal would provide additional living space within the property but this would be limited to providing a personal benefit for the appellant. There would be no clear benefit to the public that would sufficiently outweigh the harm identified. I conclude therefore that the proposed development would fail to accord with national policy.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the [name]. The proposal would, therefore, conflict with Policies DP26 and DP35 of the Mid Sussex District Plan, Policy HurstC4 of the Hurstpierpoint and Sayers Common Neighbourhood Plan and the provisions of the Framework. These policies seek, amongst other matters, development, including extensions, to be well designed and reflect the distinctive character of the towns and villages. Development in a CA is required to conserve or enhance its special character and appearance, which I have found would not be the case here.

Having regard to the above findings, the appeal should be dismissed.