Proposed development is the construction of a new rear elevation and front elevation in place of the existing, change of existing white UPVC and other windows to dark brown/grey wood/metal/composite frames. (Amended plans received 13.02.2024, proposed side elevations received 28.08.2024)
📊
See the success rate & inspector analytics
Free to view — just create an account, no payment needed.
Sign Up FreeTechnical Issues Heatmap
Residential Amenity
Extensions
Ecology & Biodiversity
Inspector’s Reasoning
Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 27 June 2025
by O Tresise MSc MA MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 19 August 2025
Appeal Ref: APP/Y9507/D/25/3365510
4 Butser Walk, Petersfield, Hampshire GU31 4NS
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)
against a refusal to grant planning permission.
• The appeal is made by Mrs Katherine Pepper against the decision of South Downs National Park
Authority.
• The application Ref is SDNP/23/03761/HOUS.
• The proposed development is the construction of a new rear elevation and front elevation in place of
the existing, change of existing white UPVC and other windows to dark brown/grey
wood/metal/composite frames. (Amended plans received 13.02.2024, proposed side elevations
received 28.08.2024).
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the construction of a
new rear elevation and front elevation in place of the existing, change of existing
white UPVC and other windows to dark brown / grey wood / metal / composite
frames (Amended plans received 13.02.2024, proposed side elevations received
28.08.2024), in accordance with the terms of the application,
Ref. SDNP/23/03761/HOUS, subject to the following conditions:
1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the
date of this decision.
2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the
following approved plans: Location Plan, Block Plan, Drawing no. 2304-PL-010
P03, 2304-PL-014 P02, 2304-PL15 P03, 2304-PL-016 P03, and 2304-PL-017
P02.
3) The external materials of the extensions hereby permitted shall match those
stated in the application form.
4) The roof area of the extension hereby permitted shall not be used as a balcony,
roof garden or similar amenity area.
Applications for costs
2. An application for costs was made by Mrs Katherine Pepper against the South
Downs National Park Authority. This application is the subject of a separate
decision.
Appeal Decision APP/Y9507/D/25/3365510
2
Preliminary Matters
3. In the banner heading above I have taken the description of development from that
used on the appeal form and decision notice rather than the application form, as
the description of development has been agreed by both main parties.
4. Revised plans were submitted to the Authority prior to its decision and the
Authority has listed the drawing titles, reference numbers and revision numbers on
its decision. I therefore have determined the appeal on these revised plans. I am
satisfied that no party is prejudiced by my doing so.
Main Issue
5. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions
of the occupiers of 3 and 5 Butser Walk, with particular reference to daylight /
sunlight, and privacy.
Reasons
6. The appeal site comprises a two-storey mid-terraced dwelling. No 3, the
neighbouring property, lies immediately to the north of the appeal site, with a
garage block positioned beyond it. No 5 lies to the south of the appeal site. A
footpath runs along the southern side boundary of no 5 and the eastern boundary
of the appeal site and no 3.
7. The proposed rear extension is a flat-roofed structure and single storey in height. It
would be longer and taller than the existing conservatory. Whilst it would not be
closer to northern boundary of the appeal site, it would be sited closer to the
shared boundary of no. 5 than the existing conservatory.
8. With regard to daylight or sunlight, the proposed extension would reduce the
amount of natural light received by the living rooms of these neighbouring
properties. I also appreciate that the proposed extension may result in a degree of
overshadowing to the neighbouring properties, particularly during winter months.
However, the effect would not be so significant as to cause undue harm, as the
proposed extension would only be single storey in height and not significantly
larger than the existing conservatory.
9. I have had particular regard to any likely impact on the occupants to the north,
which the Authority identified as the property to be most impacted, but see no
adequate evidence to suggest why the change would be so impactful that it would
warrant a refusal. I am also mindful of the size of rear extensions which would be
permissible under permitted development rights.
10. In terms of privacy, a high-level window and a large window are proposed on the
north elevation and the south elevation respectively. At my site visit I observed that
solid timber fences were in place along both side boundaries which the Authority
described as being 1.8m in height. Although the existing boundary fences are less
than the height of the proposed extension, their height would be above sight-level
of most people and would obscure the majority of the views from the proposed
side windows into neighbouring property. Therefore, I am satisfied that an
acceptable level of privacy would be maintained for the occupiers of both
neighbouring properties.
Appeal Decision APP/Y9507/D/25/3365510
3
11. The Authority responded to concerns that the proposed flat roof could be used in
the future as a recreational space or roof terrace which could affect the privacy of
neighbouring occupants. The Authority indicated that a planning condition would
prohibit this use and suggest that the appellant would be accepting of such a
condition. I agree that such a condition would be necessary and appropriate.
12. Overall, I conclude on the main issue that, the appeal development would not have
a materially harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of no 3 and no
5 with particular regard to daylight/sunlight and privacy. Therefore, it would comply
with Policies SD5(k) and SD31 of South Downs Local Plan Adopted 2 July 2019
(2014-33) (SDLP). It would also comply with paragraph 135 of the National
Planning Policy Framework which seeks to create places with a high standard of
amenity for existing and future users.
Other Matters
13. The appeal site is within the South Downs National Park (SDNP). Section 11A of
the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 (as amended) (the
NPAC Act) requires me to seek to further the purposes specified in section 5(1) of
the NPAC Act and if it appears that there is a conflict between those purposes,
must attach greater weight to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural
beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the area comprised in the National Park.
Paragraph 189 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that great weight
should be given to conserving and enhancing the landscape and scenic beauty of
a National Park.
14. The proposed rear extension and front porch would be larger than the existing
structures, and the proposed rear extension would have a more contemporary
appearance. The appeal proposal would also include a replacement of the existing
white UPVC windows with dark brown / grey wood / metal / composite fames.
These elements would not be substantial in scale and the proposed materials are
not uncommon building materials in a residential area.
15. Furthermore, the proposed extensions are in a relatively discreet location that
would not cause harm to the landscape character of the area. I also note the
Authority raised no objection to these elements. Consequently, I conclude that the
proposal would conserve the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the
National Park. In this regard, it would comply with Policy SD5 and SD31 of the
SDLP, which requires proposal to integrate with the landscape and should be
sympathetic to the setting in terms of height, massing, roof form and materials.
Conditions
In addition to the standard time period for the commencement of development, it is
necessary in the interests of certainty to list the approved plans. I have also
imposed a condition requiring the external materials of the proposed development
to match the details stated on the application form, as this provides certainty. I
have also imposed a condition prohibiting the roof of the proposed development
from being used as amenity space in order to protect the privacy and living
conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring properties.
Appeal Decision APP/Y9507/D/25/3365510
4
Conclusion
16. For the reasons given above, and taking into account all relevant matters raised, I
conclude that the appeal should be allowed.
O Tresise
INSPECTOR
£
Costs decision section
Costs Decision
Site visit made on 27 June 2025
by O Tresise MSc MA MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 19 August 2025
Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/Y9507/D/25/3365510
4 Butser Walk, Petersfield, Hampshire GU31 4NS
• The application is made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, sections 78, 322 and
Schedule 6, and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5).
• The application is made by Mrs Katherine Pepper for a full award of costs against South Downs
National Park Authority.
• The appeal was against the refusal of the Authority to grant planning permission for the construction
of a new rear elevation and front elevation in place of the existing, change of existing white UPVC
and other windows to dark brown/grey wood/metal/composite frames. (Amended plans received
13.02.2024, proposed side elevations received 28.08.2024).
Decision
1. The application for an award of costs is refused.
Reasons
2. Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that, irrespective of the outcome of the
appeal, costs may only be awarded against a party who has behaved
unreasonably and thereby caused the party applying for costs to incur
unnecessary expense in the appeal process.
3. The applicant asserts that the Authority was unreasonable in its decision-making.
In particular, the concerns regarding the loss of amenity were vague and
generalised, the Authority took private law right to light inaccurately, and it failed to
take into consideration permitted development rights, and to provide a time scale
for the decision.
4. The PPG sets out that a local planning authority is at risk of an award of costs if it
behaves unreasonably with respect to the substance of the matter under appeal,
for example, by preventing development which should clearly be permitted, by
failing to produce evidence to substantiate each reason for refusal on appeal, or by
making vague, generalised or inaccurate assertions about a proposal’s impact,
which are unsupported by any objective analysis. In addition, it cites not
determining similar cases in a consistent manner and failing to grant a further
planning permission for a scheme that is the subject of an extent permission where
there has been no material change in circumstances as examples of unreasonable
behaviour.
5. In this case, the delegated report clearly set out the factors which led the Authority
to its conclusion on the planning merits of the case. The Authority correctly
considered the proposal against relevant development plan policies and the
national policy. The Authority had regard to the site context, including its siting in
relation to the adjacent properties. Whilst I do not agree with the Authority’s
Costs Decision APP/Y9507/D/25/3365510
2
position, it was not unreasonable for the Authority to take this instance. Ultimately,
this was a question of judgement, and I am satisfied that the Authority gave a
reasoned assessment for their decision.
6. The applicant suggests that the Authority took the private law right to light
inaccurately. However, the delegated report shows the Authority referred to the
level of light, and there is no evidence to demonstrate the Authority has token the
suggested private law as part of the assessment of the planning application.
7. The applicant indicates that the Authority should take into consideration the limit of
the permitted development right. However, the applicant’s design and access
statement did not cite details of permitted development rights as fallback position.
The evidence indicated that it was only briefly mentioned in an email
correspondence to the Authority. Notwithstanding this, given that matters of living
conditions are subject to planning judgement, and I have also found that the
Authority clearly identified its concerns in relation to this matter, I do not consider
that the Authority acted unreasonably in this respect.
8. The applicant alleges that the Authority has not determined the application in a
consistent manner with previous similar cases. However, I have not been provided
full details of those cases, and there is little evidence to substantiate this claim.
9. With regard to the timescale of decision, there is clear evidence that the Authority
were in communication with the applicant prior to making the decision. During the
planning application process, the Authority also approached the applicant to seek
clarifications on the details of the proposed development and accepted the
amended proposal, which was subject to public re-consultation. Whilst it might
have been helpful for a clear timescale to be provided by the Authority, there is no
clear evidence to substantiate that the Authority was not cooperating with the
applicant.
10. The Authority has not therefore behaved unreasonably with respect to the
substance of the matter under appeal. It follows the applicant has not wasted
expense in testing that judgement at appeal.
Conclusion
11. For the above reasons, I conclude that unreasonable behaviour resulting in
unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process, as described in the PPG,
has not been demonstrated. Therefore, the application for an award of costs is
refused.
O Tresise
INSPECTOR
Expert Representation
Don't leave your appeal to chance.
Inspectors are inconsistent. We build a technical defense using precedents from our 182,000+ case archive.
No win, no fee Householder representation — you only pay if you win.