Single storey side extension, first floor window

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 9 June 2026 by E Street BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI Decision by John Morrison BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 22ND July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6006911 Bucks Cottage, Westlands Copse Lane, River Common, Tillington, West Sussex GU28 9BH • 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 Athena Hubble against the decision of South Downs National Park Authority. • The application Ref is SDNP/25/04097/HOUS. • The development proposed is a single storey side extension, first floor window. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey side extension, first floor window at Bucks Cottage, Westlands Copse Lane, River Common, Tillington, West Sussex GU28 9BH in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref SDNP/25/04097/HOUS, subject to the following 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 drawing numbers: 2120-PCA-E-1403, 2120-PCA-E-1502, 2120-PCA-E-1504, 2120-PCA-E-1501, 2120-1304, 2120_1302, 2120_1301, 2120-PCA-Extg-P- 00-0101, 2120-PCA-Extg-P-00-0100, 2120-PCA-P-00-1200. Appeal Procedure 2. The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area with specific regard to a Non-Designated Heritage Asset (NDHA) and the South Downs National Park (NP). Reasons for the Recommendation 4. Bucks Cottage is a detached dwelling located within a large plot accessed by a single track. It is isolated in its siting, connected previously to the Leconfield Estate. The building appears largely original save for the French doors on the side elevation and porch on the front. The catslide to the rear is a defining feature of the rear elevation along with the building set down into the landscape. It still however, despite this, retains its vernacular character and modest scale respecting its Appeal Decision 6006911 2 historic status as a worker’s cottage. These features, together with the rurality of the dwelling’s surroundings, contribute positively to its significance as the NDHA. 5. The proposed side extension is to be set back from the front elevation of the dwelling. Moreover, the overall roofline would match the form of the catslide roof to the rear. The wall to roof ratio would differ from the existing building along with a much higher level of glazing on both the front and side elevation. It however shows a clear distinction between the existing building and the new extension in that it is not trying to match the house and is clearly identifiable as a later addition. There are also already modern French doors on the building’s side elevation. Resultantly, the scheme would not detract from traditional simplistic vernacular of the cottage. The floor area of the extension would be substantial in the context of the cottage’s modesty but would remain as a subservient element by virtue of a noticeably lesser land take that the host dwelling. It would not, by virtue of its design and use of materials, be visually assertive or dominating to the dwelling’s façade. 6. I am aware of the duty to further the purposes of protected landscapes. For the NP, these are conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage; and, promoting opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of the NP by the public. Despite how exposed the cottage is in local landscape terms, it’s curtilage is secluded in the wider sense. The scheme would extend an existing dwelling and maintain its relationship to the land on which it sits. It would also continue the original building’s situation built partly into the ground on one side. Given this and the scale of the development, it would conserve the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the NP. 7. As such, the proposal would be acceptable for the character and appearance of the area with specific regard to the significance of the NDHA and the special qualities of the NP. Consequently, it would comply with Policies SD1, SD4, SD5, SD6, SD7, SD12 and SD31 of the South Downs National Park Local Plan 2019 and the National Planning Policy Framework. These policies, amongst other things, seek to ensure that development proposals are of a high-quality design and standard. Conditions 8. The standard time limit condition and reference to the approved plans is necessary for enforcement purposes. The plans also detail the proposed materials to be used. Since they are acceptable, I have not recommended a materials condition. The Council has not set out any other conditions, and I have not deemed any others necessary. Conclusion and Recommendation 9. For the reasons given above, the scheme would comply with the development plan, I therefore recommend that the appeal should be allowed. E Street APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Appeal Decision 6006911 3 Inspector’s Decision 10. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted, subject to the conditions set out above. John Morrison INSPECTOR