Single storey side extension to provide entrance hall, bathroom and two bedrooms. Replacement of existing conservatory and additional accessible ensuite bathroom to bedroom created in place of existing kitchen. Existing kitchen to be relocated in the living area

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 18 June 2026 by Scott Wilson LL.B. MSc MRTPI Decision by B Plenty BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 04 August 2026 Appeal Ref: 6007186 The Old Forge, Annexe, The Street, Kingston, East Sussex BN7 3PB • 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 Sheila Welham against the decision of South Downs National Park Authority. • The application Ref is SDNP/24/04979/HOUS. • The development proposed is a single storey side extension to provide entrance hall, bathroom and two bedrooms. Replacement of existing conservatory and additional accessible ensuite bathroom to bedroom created in place of existing kitchen. Existing kitchen to be relocated in the living area. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. 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 whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Kingston Conservation Area (CA). Reasons for the Recommendation 4. The Kingston Conservation Area Appraisal sets out that the CA derives its significance from being a well-preserved historic agricultural village, whose character emerges from its Saxon and medieval origins within a manorial farming landscape. Its linear form along ‘The Street’, informal layout of cottages, farmsteads and barns, and the survival of buildings such as Kingston Manor, Hyde Manor and St Pancras Church illustrate this agricultural and estate-based evolution. This is reinforced by the use of traditional materials, flint boundary walls, and a strong relationship with the surrounding downland. The Old Forge is identified as a building making a positive contribution to that character, forming part of the wider historic fabric that supports the area’s predominantly agricultural and rural significance. 5. Whilst figure 36 of the Kingston Conservation Area Character Appraisal Map indicates that the appeal building makes a positive contribution to the CA, it does not set out the reason why. The Council maintains that the property is ‘locally listed’; however, there is no supporting evidence to demonstrate its historic merit or significance and notably no consultee comments from a heritage professional Appeal Decision 6007186 2 setting this out. An unlisted building of merit would make a positive contribution to the CA, whereas a ‘locally listed’ Non-Designated Heritage Asset (NDHA) would be afforded protections in its own right. 6. The National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (the Framework) defines a heritage asset as: ‘A building, monument, site, place, area, or landscape identified as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions, because of its heritage interest. It includes assets identified by the local planning authority (including local listing).’ The Planning Practice Guidance provides that it is important that all NDHAs are clearly identified as such. In this context, it can be helpful if local planning authorities keep a local list of NDHAs. Given the lack of evidence submitted to demonstrate its historic significance, I cannot be certain that the appeal property is a NDHA. 7. The proposal includes a side extension, forming two further bedrooms, and a conservatory at the opposite end of the dwelling. The extension would extend the form of the existing dwelling with a similar width and form as the existing dwelling. Although the Council has concerns about the proposed materials of this element, these could be subject to conditions requiring details to be agreed prior to being incorporated into the scheme. As such, the use of a condition would ensure that this element would complement and preserve the character of the conservation area. The high-level landscape window, shown on the western elevation, would be similar to existing windows on this elevation and would not materially change the overall complementary form of the proposed extension. 8. Turning to the proposed conservatory, I noted on my site visit that the existing glass structure on the south elevation of the appeal building appeared to be a small utilitarian glass house constructed with timber frame, single pitch roof, and single pane glass. It was being used for the storage of materials. I also noted that the gable wall where the proposed south extension would be located is set at an angle. Any explanation of why would be speculative, but it is clearly an original feature. 9. The evidence is that the south extension would be constructed in glass, amongst other things, with an aluminium frame. It would increase in size above the existing in floorspace and height and would provide a dual pitch glass roof. Whilst the form of the extension would be subordinate, and the frame may be aluminium; it nonetheless visually appears as frameless and with a glass roof, taken as a whole. The dual pitch glass roof and the apparently frameless construction would jar against the traditional material palette of the host dwelling and buildings within the surrounding CA. 10. I acknowledge the appellant's contention that the proposal represents a contemporary architectural approach. However, the issue before me is not whether the design of the conservatory is traditional or modern in stylistic terms. Rather, it is whether the development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. Despite the merits of contemporary architecture in principle, I find that the proposed conservatory element of the scheme would sit uncomfortably within its context and would result in harm to the area's significance. 11. Whilst it would be possible to condition the use of materials to external surfaces of the proposed conservatory, I cannot be certain of that such a condition would overcome the apparent frameless glass construction. The appellant has stated that they would accept a timber framed construction method. However, this would Appeal Decision 6007186 3 materially change the proposal, and I have not been provided with a plan to demonstrate this or a suitably worded condition to secure it. Even if I had, it would not be acceptable to materially evolve a proposal through the appeal process. 12. Whilst the appellant maintains that the external construction of the walls would be of flint with brick, the approved plans appear to show a painted render finish to the external walls of the proposal. Such an external finish as shown by the plans would be uncharacteristic of the host dwelling, the surrounding area and consequently would jar against the character or appearance of the CA. As mentioned above, I am aware that I can impose a condition controlling the external surfaces, which in this instance would overcome this issue. However, it would not overcome the harm I have identified above. 13. I acknowledge the recent extension to the adjacent ‘Old Forge’. However, that extension does not use what appears visually as a frameless glass construction method and mostly uses natural materials sympathetic to the local distinctiveness and character of the CA. 14. Given the scale and location of the proposed development, I consider it would erode the significance of the CA and result in harm. The harm to the significance of the CA would be less than substantial, at the lower end of such harm, in terms of the National Planning Policy Framework (December 2024) (the Framework). Nevertheless, great weight should be afforded to an asset’s conservation. 15. I am required to balance this harm against the public benefits of the proposal. The provision of improved useability of the appeal site would, primarily, be a personal benefit which I afford little weight. Whilst I acknowledge the intentional separation of old and new through the use of high-quality contemporary materials and form, on the basis of the evidence before me I do not find that the proposal would improve the architectural aesthetic of the host building or the character or appearance of the CA. 16. I accept that the proposal would remove several poor quality sheds and utilitarian structures on the site, demonstrating a visual benefit to the site and the appeal building. However, there is no mechanism before me to limit similar structures being built on site in the future. Consequently, I afford this benefit limited weight. 17. The incorporation of thermally efficient construction with improved thermal detailing and environmentally conscious material choices would offer a modest contribution towards sustainable development. Furthermore, there would be an economic benefit during construction through the patronage of local businesses. Nevertheless, given the limited scale of the proposal, the extent of these benefits would be small and attract only minimal weight. 18. The proposal would adversely affect the character and appearance of the host building and consequently fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA. The public benefits advanced in support of the appeal are modest and, whether individually or cumulatively, do not outweigh the less than substantial harm identified to the significance of the CA. Great weight must be given to the conservation of designated heritage assets. In this instance, the identified harm is not justified by the limited benefits of the scheme. 19. Accordingly, the proposal would conflict with Policies SD1, SD5, SD12, and SD15 of the South Downs Local Plan 2014-33 (2019), insofar as they seek high quality Appeal Decision 6007186 4 design that respects and reflects local distinctiveness and preserves or enhances the architectural or historic character of heritage assets. The proposal would also conflict with the relevant paragraphs of the Framework, insofar as they seek high quality development that respects local distinctiveness and conserves or enhances the character or appearance of the historical environment. Other Matters 20. The appellant maintains that the proposal would provide two additional bedrooms and an accessible bathroom, allowing the dwelling to meet the needs of an ageing occupier and a potential future live-in carer. Therefore, I have had regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) contained in s149 of the Equalities Act 2010. The duty includes having regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, harassment, and advance equality of opportunity between those sharing relevant protected characteristics and those who do not. Age and disability are relevant protected characteristics to which the PSED applies. 21. These rights are engaged in reaching my recommendation and I have kept these interests at the forefront of my mind. However, they are qualified rights, and interference may be justified in the public interest. The concept of proportionality is key. I recognise that the proposal may facilitate the involvement of persons with protected characteristics. However, the supporting evidence is limited, and it has not been demonstrated that the appeal proposal is the only means which would provide assistance for the ageing occupier. I am also mindful that personal circumstances and ownership of the land can change, but the effect of the development would be permanent. 22. Thus, on the basis of the evidence before me, the PSED considerations do not outweigh the significant harm that I have identified. Following careful consideration of these particular matters I am satisfied that the impact of dismissing this appeal is proportionate and justified. 23. I acknowledge that public views of the appeal building are limited; however, views of the building are experienced from neighbouring properties within the CA. 24. I recognise that the development would not harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, and that existing vehicle and pedestrian access arrangements would remain unchanged. However, these are neutral in the overall planning balance and would not weigh in support of the scheme. 25. The appellant maintains that the proposal would bring the appeal building in line with modern space standards; however, I have no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate this assertion. 26. Whilst the proposal would use previously developed land, the development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and consequently the CA. Conclusion and Recommendation 27. The proposal would conflict with policies of the development plan and there are no material considerations, including the benefits of the proposal, which justify granting permission contrary to the development plan. Therefore, for the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. Appeal Decision 6007186 5 Scott Wilson APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 28. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. B Plenty INSPECTOR