Demolition of existing single-storey front extension and rear conservatory, addition of a two-storey front extension, internal reconfiguration at ground and first floors and full refurbishment

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 19 March 2026 by S Leonard BA (Hons) BTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 30th March 2026 Appeal Ref: 6001261 81 Henley Old Road, Henley, Easebourne, West Sussex GU27 3HQ • 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 Chan Jagpal against the decision of South Downs National Park Authority. • The application Ref is SDNP/25/03077/HOUS. • The development proposed is demolition of existing single-storey front extension and rear conservatory, addition of a two-storey front extension, internal reconfiguration at ground and first floors and full refurbishment. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and permission is granted for demolition of existing single- storey front extension and rear conservatory, addition of a two-storey front extension, internal reconfiguration at ground and first floors and full refurbishment, at 81 Henley Old Road, Henley, Easebourne, West Sussex GU27 3HQ, in accordance with the terms of the planning application Ref SDNP/25/03077/HOUS and the plans submitted with it, subject to the attached schedule of conditions. Preliminary Matter 2. Notwithstanding the list of drawings on the decision notice, the Council has confirmed that, prior to the refusal of the planning application, Proposed Sections drawing ref 517_300 Rev B superseded drawing ref 517_300 A, and that Floor Plans drawing ref 517_100 rev B superseded the ‘Proposed Floor Plans’ element of drawing ref 517_EX_100 Rev A. These revisions had the effect of removing the originally proposed central roof light. I have dealt with the appeal accordingly. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host property and the wider Henley Conservation Area and the landscape character and appearance of the South Downs National Park. Reasons 4. The appeal site is located within the rural hamlet of Henley which lies to the east of the A286 Midhurst to Fernhurst Road. It is within the Henley Conservation Area (HCA) and the South Downs National Park. The property comprises an unoccupied two-storey dwelling. It is set back from the site frontage in an elevated position in relation to the road and within a large and heavily wooded site where ground levels rise steeply from the front to the rear. Appeal Decision 6001261 2 5. The Council has not set out what it considers comprise the key characteristics and significance of the HCA and there is no adopted Conservation Area Appraisal. 6. I saw during my visit that the HCA is characterised by an ad-hoc arrangement of low-density built development comprising detached dwellings set within large heavily landscaped and hilly plots. Mature trees have a dominant presence in the undulating landscape, within which properties are sited intermittently and at varying land levels. Buildings are often heavily screened in views from the public realm of the street due to being set well back from the road, being sited at a much higher or lower ground level than the street and/or and being screened by intermittent trees and mature vegetation. 7. The prevailing architecture is vernacular in style and buildings include 18th and 19th century cottages and former agricultural buildings now in residential use, as well as a public house which is a key central community facility. There is a preponderance of local materials. These mainly comprise stone and brick walls, with stone walls often incorporating red brick feature quoins and window surrounds. Roofs are covered in slate and clay tiles. Timber fenestration prevails and timber cladding also features, particularly in respect of outbuildings. Steeply pitched roofs comprising gables and half-hips with feature brick chimneys are also common throughout the HCA. 8. The roads are narrow and lined by grass verges and frontage hedging and trees, and there is a lack of street lighting or pedestrian pavements. Moreover, the settlement has largely been by-passed by, and lies at a notably lower height than, the main A286. As such there are low levels of vehicular traffic passing through the hamlet. 9. All the above combine to create a pleasant, verdant, tranquil townscape where natural landscape features dominate, and properties are subservient to the surrounding undulating wooded hillsides. 10. The appeal property is a part single and part two-storey detached dwelling which is set well back from the site frontage on elevated ground where it is accessed via a private drive leading off the public highway. 11. The rear-most original part of the building comprises an attractive 2-storey stone cottage with a pitched roof which is part gable ended and part hipped and slate covered. It drops down to a single storey lean-to element on one side with a catslide slate roof. This older part of the building incorporates attractive architectural features including terracotta ridge tiles, two brick chimney stacks, a rear pitched roof dormer, red brick quoins, and brick and arched lintel detailing around window and door openings. 12. A more recent brick single storey extension has been added to the front of the cottage. It has a shallow mono-pitched roof with high eaves and a ridge height which rises above the eaves level of the original cottage. The addition projects beyond the eastern side wall of the original building and its depth is like that of the original building. 13. As such, due to a combination of its height, depth and width and its juxtaposition in relation to the original building, the modern front element of the existing property appears as an incongruous and overwhelming later addition to the property. It detracts from the character of the original cottage and it obscures the historic Appeal Decision 6001261 3 building form in views from the north, where it is most visible from the public realm of the street below. 14. Moreover, the discordant relationship between the original building and the extension is compounded by a further protruding single storey entrance lobby with white plastic composite cladding walls and a white uPVC front door and windows which is strongly out of keeping with the prevailing vernacular architecture and materials. 15. The proposal would replace the modern front single storey projection and the wide front elevation double dormer of the older part of the dwelling with a two-storey extension which would roughly align with the width of the original two-storey part of the dwelling. 16. The proposal would incorporate design features which are characteristic of the original part of the dwelling and the prevailing vernacular architecture which forms a key positive feature of the HCA. These include steep slate roof pitches on the front and side, a subsidiary pitched roof front dormer, clay ridge tiles, and stone faced walls with brick detailing around the window and door openings and brick quoins. 17. Timber windows and doors would be provided throughout the building to replace the existing uPVC fenestration. The scheme would also remove the existing brown uPVC conservatory addition at the rear of the building which is of no architectural merit and does not respect the vernacular architecture of the original dwelling. 18. Moreover, the proposed catslide roofed front porch and entrance door would create an obvious front main entrance to the dwelling. A positive functional feature which is currently not clearly identifiable within the existing building design. 19. The proposed pitched roof front gable, by matching the ridge height of the existing roof and being considerably narrower than the front elevation of the building, would remain subservient in scale to the main building. It would also be in keeping with other similarly designed pitched roof gable ended roof features seen throughout the HCA including on the adjacent dwelling to the west of the appeal site. 20. Accordingly, the resulting altered and extended building would better respect the architectural integrity of the original building and the prevailing vernacular architecture and materials that are characteristic of the HCA than the existing front addition. The overall height, scale and mass of the building would not be significantly increased, and the resulting property would sit comfortably within its woodland setting. 21. Moreover, the extended appeal property would remain of a similar height, scale and mass as the neighbouring dwelling, which also incorporates several of the aforesaid vernacular design materials and architectural features that characterise the appeal scheme. 22. I have noted that the Council’s Adopted Design Guide (ADG)1 states that extensions to roofs should usually be set below the original roofline. However, notwithstanding this, I find no conflict with the overall expectation of the ADG that household extensions must be designed to respect the size and character of the house and the existing character and appearance of the street and the wider area. 1 South Downs National Park Adopted Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document South Downs Local Plan (July 2022) Appeal Decision 6001261 4 23. Notwithstanding the reference to light spill into the dark skies of the National Park in the Council’s reason for refusal, given the removal of the roof light in question from the appeal scheme prior to the determination of the planning application, I am satisfied that this matter has been satisfactorily addressed. 24. Accordingly, having regard to all of the above, I find that the proposal would be sympathetic to its landscaped surroundings as well as complementing the character and appearance of the HCA. 25. For the above reasons, I therefore conclude that the proposal would not materially harm the character and appearance of the host property and the wider Henley Conservation Area and the landscape character and appearance of the South Downs National Park. As such, it accords with Policies SD1, SD4, SD5, SD8, SD15 and SD31 of the South Downs Local Plan (2 July 2019) in so much as these policies, cumulatively and amongst other things, seek to ensure that new development comprises sensitive and high-quality design which contributes to local distinctiveness, respects the established character of the local area, preserves or enhances the special architectural or historic interest, character or appearance of the conservation area, protects the quality of the dark night skies, and conserves and enhances landscape character and protects the natural beauty of the National Park. 26. For similar reasons, the appeal scheme also accords with policies of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (the Framework) which seek to achieve well- designed places and conserve and enhance the natural and historic environment as set out in Chapters 12, 15 and 16. Conditions 27. I have considered the conditions suggested by the Council and the appellant, should the appeal be allowed, in the light of the tests set out in paragraph 57 of the Framework and the National Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). I have imposed them where I consider them to be necessary and reasonable. Where necessary, I have altered them in the interests of clarity and precision. 28. In addition to the standard implementation condition (1), it is necessary to define the plans for certainty (2). In the interests of the character and appearance of the area, having regard to the location of the site within the HCA and within a wooded setting within the National Park, conditions are necessary to ensure appropriate materials for the development (3) and the protection of trees of high visual amenity value (4). 29. A condition is also necessary in the interests of protecting wildlife, in particular bats and birds (5). Conclusion 30. The development accords with the development plan taken as a whole and there are no material considerations, including the Framework, that indicate that the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. 31. For the above reasons, I conclude that the appeal should succeed, and planning permission be granted subject to conditions. Appeal Decision 6001261 5 S Leonard INSPECTOR Schedule of conditions 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Site Location Plan 001; Location Plan PP- 13984830vI; Proposed Site and Block Plan 517-000 rev A; Proposed Elevations 517_200 rev A; Existing Site Plan 517_EX_000 Rev A; Existing and Proposed Floor Plans 517_EX_100 rev A in respect of the Existing Floor Plans only; Floor Plans 517_100 Rev B; Existing Elevations 517_EX_200 rev A; Existing Sections 517_EX_300 rev A; Proposed Sections 517_300 rev B; and Area Plans 517_102 rev A. 3) No development above ground level shall take place until details/samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details/samples. 4) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the Arboricultural Impact Assessment drawing 41506067_AIA01 and accompanying Arboricultural Survey Ref 41506067_TS R01 dated 14 August 2025 by Arbtech. 5) The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until bat and bird boxes have been installed on the site in accordance with details which have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. ***End of Conditions***