Single storey front and rear extensions, garage conversion and internal alterations. Proposed demolition of existing outbuilding / shed and construction of new outbuilding / garage

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 16 June 2026 by T Morris BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI Decision by L McKay MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 14th August 2026 Appeal Ref: 6008233 Little Chyngton, Chyngton Lane, Seaford, East Sussex BN25 4BS • 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 Richard Walmsley against the decision of Lewes District Council. • The application Ref is LW/25/0612. • The development proposed is a single storey front and rear extensions, garage conversion and internal alterations. Proposed demolition of existing outbuilding / shed and construction of new outbuilding / garage. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to the proposed construction of a new outbuilding/garage. 2. The appeal is allowed insofar as it relates to the proposed single storey front and rear extensions, garage conversion and internal alterations. Planning permission is therefore granted for the proposed single storey front and rear extensions, garage conversion and internal alterations at Little Chyngton, Chyngton Lane, Seaford, East Sussex, BN25 4BS, in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref: LW/25/0612, 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 the following plan insofar as it relates to the proposed single storey front and rear extensions, garage conversion and internal alterations only: drawing no 25/692/04A (Proposed Floor Plan, Elevations and Site Block Plan). 3) No development above ground level shall take place until details 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. Appeal Procedure 3. 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. Application for Costs 4. An application for costs has been made by Mr and Mrs Walmsley against Lewes District Council. This is subject of a separate decision. Appeal Decision 6008233 2 Preliminary Matter 5. The Council’s officer report indicates that it has no concerns with the proposed works to the existing dwelling. Its concerns are instead focussed on the proposed outbuilding/garage. I have defined the main issues on that basis and return to the extensions and garage conversion below. Main Issues 6. The main issues are the effect of the proposed outbuilding/garage on: i) the character and appearance of the area, including the setting of the Chyngton Conservation Area; and ii) the living conditions of occupiers of Sunkist Cottage, with particular regard to outlook and sunlight. Reasons for the Recommendation Character and Appearance / Chyngton Conservation Area 7. The appeal site comprises a detached two-storey dwelling situated in a semi-rural area. The dwellings on Chyngton Lane are generally set within large plots which feature mature planting. The open gardens and landscaping around the dwellings contribute positively to a spacious and verdant character along the lane. I also observed on my site visit that outbuildings and garages tend to be modest in scale and are not overtly prominent in the gardens in the area. With its very large and mostly open plot, extensive mature planting, and absence of large structures in the garden, the appeal site reinforces the positive characteristics of the area. The site therefore also contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area. 8. I have had regard of the Council’s General Design Guidelines for Seaford (2019) (DG). Policy GB06 of the DG advises that outbuildings should be as far away from the house as possible to stop it overshadowing gardens or appear overbearing. It also states that an outbuilding with a ridged roof should be no higher than 4m, that outbuildings should be clearly subservient and where they are near to a boundary, steps should be made to minimise its height. 9. Although the height of the proposed outbuilding is not annotated on the plans, the Council indicate that it would be 6.5m, contrary to the DG. The site plan also indicates that the footprint of the outbuilding would not be substantially smaller than the footprint of the dwelling in its current form. Therefore, and as a consequence of the considerable scale and mass of the outbuilding, it would appear as a bulky and prominent addition which would relate poorly to the host dwelling, even if that dwelling has extended as proposed. Consequently, the proposal would erode the sense of space around the dwelling, to the detriment of the open and verdant character of the garden and the locality. 10. Even though the plot is very large and most of it would remain undeveloped, the outbuilding would be sited close to the boundary to Sunkist Cottage. It would therefore appear especially prominent and conspicuous when viewed in the context of the gardens. The hipped roof design would not be sufficient to reduce the bulk and mass of the outbuilding to the extent that it would offset its visual harm. I therefore see no compelling reasons why the height of the outbuilding should not follow the DG guidance given its proximity to the boundary. Appeal Decision 6008233 3 11. Although there is some established planting along the site’s boundary adjacent to where the outbuilding would be located, there are some gaps in the planting, so much so that it would not be fully screened from the surroundings. Furthermore, any additional boundary planting would take time to establish. Consequently, the presence of some screening and the prospect of additional planting does not alter my findings. 12. The evidence provided by the appellant suggests that the collapsed and removed outbuilding at the site was a simple gable roofed structure which was lower in height and had a smaller footprint than the outbuilding subject of this appeal. Conversely, although the proposed outbuilding would be only slightly taller in height, its footprint and extent would mean that it would be greater in terms of its mass and bulk. Accordingly, it would be more prominent and conspicuous at the site compared to the collapsed outbuilding, at least from the evidence before me. Therefore, the siting of the collapsed outbuilding does not justify the proposed outbuilding. 13. I also note the appellant’s reference to a development nearby, including an outbuilding which was approved under planning application reference LW/24/0599. However, the full planning background including the plans for that development have not been provided in order for me to make a full comparison. Therefore, I cannot be certain that the circumstances in which that application was approved are the same as in this appeal. Consequently, this application does not lead me to a different conclusion on this main issue. 14. Although the appellant is of the view that a substantial outbuilding could be constructed under permitted development, this is not supported by a lawful development certificate for such a prospect. In any case, the plans before me clearly indicate that the permitted development scheme referred to by the appellant would be considerably lower in height than the proposed outbuilding. Such a development would be less harmful than the proposal I am considering and does not therefore justify it. There are also limited details of a proposal for a series of smaller structures instead, so this does not alter my findings. 15. The site is located near to the Chyngton Conservation Area (CA). The significance of the CA is partly derived by the manor house and its group of outbuildings, as well as the open space and trees which contribute to a rural character and appearance on Chyngton Lane. That being said, the appeal site is setback from Chyngton Lane and is separated from the boundary of the CA by Sunkist Cottage. Therefore, despite the visual harm of the proposal which I have already set out, the outbuilding would be a sufficient distance away from the boundary of the CA that it would not therefore be harmful to its setting. 16. Nevertheless, the proposed outbuilding/garage would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would conflict with Policy CP11 of the Lewes District Local Plan Part 1 (2016) (LLP1), Policies DM25 and DM29 of the Lewes District Local Plan Part 2 (2020) (LLP2) and Policy SEA2 of the Seaford Neighbourhood Plan (Made in 2020) (NP), in consideration of effects on character and appearance. Amongst other matters, these require that the size of outbuildings relates satisfactory to the existing dwelling and character of the locality and that developments should respond sympathetically to the characteristics of the site and surroundings. Appeal Decision 6008233 4 17. For the same reasons, the proposal would also be contrary to the guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework, which states that developments should add to the overall quality of the area and be sympathetic to local character. Living Conditions 18. Sunkist Cottage is a detached dwelling located adjacent to the appeal site. However, its nearest windowed elevation which faces towards the site is set far away from the boundary. Its nearest windows would not be positioned in line with the proposed outbuilding, and so any views of it from habitable rooms would be from an oblique angle. Due to this arrangement, together with the intervening space between the outbuilding and the windowed elevation, it would not have an overbearing effect on outlook when experienced by occupiers of any habitable rooms on this elevation at Sunkist Cottage. 19. Although the outbuilding would appear as a prominent feature above the boundary fence when viewed from the garden of Sunkist Cottage, it would only affect the outlook from a limited part of the sizeable garden. Even though I have found that the proposal would result in visual harm to character and appearance, this would not translate to an unacceptable adverse impact to the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers, in terms of outlook from the garden. 20. Similarly, although the outbuilding would likely overshadow part of the garden of Sunkist Cottage during evening hours, this would only affect a small part of the garden for a short time. Consequently, it would not amount to unacceptable harm to the living conditions of occupiers of the dwelling, in terms of sunlight. 21. For these reasons, the proposal would harm the living conditions of occupiers of Sunkist Cottage, with particular regard to outlook and sunlight. Of those referred to on the Council’s decision notice, the proposal would comply with Policy DM25 of the LLP2, insofar as it relates to living conditions. This requires that developments do not result in unacceptable adverse impacts on the amenities of neighbouring properties in terms of outlook and sunlight. Other Matters 22. I am conscious that the appellant has amended the proposal and that third parties submitted revised comments following the amendments, albeit these still raise concerns regarding the height of the outbuilding. Nevertheless, I have drawn my own conclusions on the outbuilding element of the proposal and have found it to be unacceptable. Furthermore, any concerns with regards to the way in which the council dealt with the application is not a reason to allow the appeal. 23. It has not been demonstrated that the benefits of the development in terms of using the outbuilding to store garden equipment and reusing materials from the original structure could not also be provided with a structure of a smaller scale or different design, which would not be as harmful to the character and appearance of the area. There is also limited information to confirm that siting the outbuilding to a different location would be harmful to trees. In addition, a condition to limit the use of the outbuilding would not overcome the harm identified, which arises from the scale of the building rather than its use. 24. The works to the existing dwelling are clearly separate from the proposed outbuilding on the submitted plans. These are modest and relate well to the existing Appeal Decision 6008233 5 dwelling and the character and appearance of the area. They are set far enough from neighbours to have no material impact on their living conditions. Therefore, I am satisfied that this element of the development complies with LLP1 Policy CP11, LLP2 Policies DM25, DM28, DM29 and NP Policy SEA2. These works are severable from the elements of the scheme which I have found to be unacceptable. On this basis, a split decision would be a reasonable outcome for the appeal. Conditions 25. In terms of the elements of the scheme to be allowed, the time limit and approved plans conditions are necessary in the interests of certainty and clarity. A materials condition is also necessary in the interests of the character and appearance of the area. Conclusion and Recommendation 26. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed in part and dismissed in part. T Morris APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 27. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to the proposed construction of a new outbuilding/garage. The appeal is allowed insofar as it relates to the proposed single storey front and rear extensions, garage conversion and internal alterations, subject to the conditions listed above. L McKay INSPECTOR