Appeal 6006395

The appeal is dismissed.

The site is within the South Downs National Park (SDNP) where there is a statutory duty on decision-makers to seek to further the purposes of designation. The primary purpose in respect of the SDNP is to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the National Park.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on (i) the living conditions of occupants of [address] with regard to outlook and daylight/sunlight; and (ii) the character and appearance of the dwelling and surrounding area, having regard to the purposes of the SDNP.

Within the appeal site, an existing detached double garage is located on the shared boundary with [address], opposite and approximately 6m from the nearest side elevation of the neighbouring dwelling. The end elevation of the garage wall facing [address] extends significantly above the adjacent fence height. [address], adjacent to the garage at the appeal site, is a garden area with a small vegetable garden and patio area. This garden area is also bounded by the dwelling and a detached garage serving [address] to the north. There is therefore an existing element of enclosure to this section of garden with the two-storey elevation of the dwelling and lower facing walls of the two garages.

The proposal includes raising the ridge of the garage roof by approximately 2m, to a height of approximately 5.6m, to provide a guest bedroom/hobby space in the roof space. A proposed dormer window would be set back from the boundary. This proposed increase in height on the side elevation is significant and the increase in scale of the structure as a whole would appear dominant on the shared boundary and result in an increased sense of enclosure for occupants of [address] when using this section of garden. Consequently, the proposal would be overbearing and have an adverse impact on the outlook of occupants of [address].

The appellant contends that the slope of the proposed garage roof is such that the impact of the height increase is limited. While it is true that the maximum increase in height proposed is over a limited width, the proposed elevations submitted show that in comparison with the existing elevation there will be a significant element of roof above that which currently exists. The existing elevation is already tall and the resultant scale of the proposed side elevation would be overbearing to users of the adjacent section of garden at [address].

The proposal would have limited effect on the overall amount of sky visible from neighbouring properties and therefore would not adversely affect daylight. With regard to sunlight, the proposed changes to the roof of the garage at Weyridge would increase overshadowing of the adjacent garden at [address], but with the garden being immediately to the east of the garage, this would only occur for a short time towards the end of the day. Consequently, the proposal would not result in unacceptable loss of sunlight to the occupants of [address].

While the proposal would not have an unacceptable effect on daylight and sunlight, it would harm the outlook of occupants of [address] and would thus adversely impact on their living conditions. The proposal would therefore conflict with Policies SD5 and SD31 of the South Downs Local Plan 2019 (SDLP) which require development avoid harmful impact upon any surrounding uses and amenities and not be overbearing to nearby residents.

There is no consistent style of property along [site address] in the vicinity of the appeal site. Properties vary in scale, character, setback from the road and age. While dwellings are predominantly two-storey there are also a number of bungalows. Front pitched roof dormers are visible in [site address] scene, this being the case for both modern and older development. The appeal dwelling is a modest detached bungalow, set back some distance from the road with a double garage positioned at a lower level, to the left side of the dwelling when viewed from the front.

The proposal would result in a significant increase in scale of the dwelling and its character and appearance would change. However, the proposed development would not be of an excessive scale for the plot within which it sits or in comparison to other dwellings in the area. The proposed dormer windows would not dominate the roof in its proposed form and the garage set at a lower level to the dwelling would remain subordinate to the extended house. The proposal would not therefore have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the dwelling.

Given the variety in scale and character of dwellings in the area, including bungalows with front dormers, the proposal would not look incongruous and would not therefore have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the wider area. Consequently, it would not cause harm to the primary purpose of the SDNP to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage.

The Authority consider that the scale of the two dormer windows in the dwelling would be excessive in relation to the existing building and would be an incongruous addition that would have a negative impact on [site address] scene. The dormer windows would be a modest addition, in proportion with the extended dwelling and similar to other dwellings with dormer windows in the area. The proposal would not have a negative impact on [site address] scene.

The Authority also consider the proposed increased height of the garage roof to be overdevelopment. However, the footprint of the garage would not significantly change, and the garage would remain subordinate to the extended dwelling. Much of the increase in floor area of the proposal, would be in the roof of the dwelling and the garage with only a modest increase to the overall footprint of development on the plot. For the reasons given above the proposal would not result in overdevelopment of the site.

As noted by the Authority, Part a of Policy SD31 of the SDLP, states that proposed extensions should not increase the floorspace of the existing dwelling by more than approximately 30% unless there are exceptional circumstances. Guidance on exceptional circumstances is provided in the South Downs Local Plan Extensions and [name], October 2023 (the TAN), and the proposal does not meet the guidance for exceptional circumstances. The increase in area of the proposal is disputed but both parties agree that the increase would be a minimum of 41%. The proposal is therefore in conflict with part a of Policy SD31 of the SDLP.

However, the purpose of Policy SD31, as set out in the explanatory text, is to avoid the over extension of existing dwellings and the adverse impact that this has on the character and appearance of both settlements and the countryside, and to avoid the loss of small and medium homes. It is noted in paragraph 2.5 of the TAN, where a proposed extension exceeds approximately 30%, a key material consideration will be whether the proposal meets the purposes of the policy. Since the proposal would not harm character and appearance or result in a loss of small and medium homes, it would not undermine the policy’s purposes.

I also note that permission was recently granted at nearby [address] for extension works which exceeded the floorspace threshold, which suggests larger extensions are capable of compliance with Policy SD31 Part a.

For these reasons, the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the area.

Section 245 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 requires relevant authorities ‘seek to further’ the statutory purposes of [name], including National Parks. In addition, Paragraph 189 of the National Planning Policy Framework requires great weight be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, which have the highest status of protection in relation to these issues. In the absence of harm to character and appearance, I am satisfied the proposal would conserve the landscape and scenic beauty of the SDNP and thus would comply with the statutory duty.

I am therefore satisfied that the proposal would comply with [name] SD4, SD5, and SD31 which together require development integrate with, respect, and conserve and enhance landscape character, and avoid adverse impacts on the character and appearance of settlements and countryside through over-extension of dwellings.

The applicant considers that the additional proposed floorspace offers public benefit through contributing to meeting the need for family housing. However, the extension of an existing dwelling would represent only a small addition to the area’s housing stock, and the scale of benefit would not outweigh the conflict with the development plan identified above.

As set out above, I have found the proposal would not have a harmful effect on daylight and sunlight and would not harm the character and appearance of the appeal property and surrounding area, including the SDNP. However, I have found the proposal would harm the outlook, and thus the living conditions of, the occupants of [address].

The proposed development would therefore conflict with the development plan as a whole, and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.