# Adsdean House, Adsdean (listed building consent - stair lift) - **Decision:** dismissed, 30 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: B Phillips - **Authority:** South Downs National Park Authority (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6001939 - **Application reference:** SDNP/25/02152/LIS - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Installation of a through-floor lift from ground to first floor in a Grade II listed house (listed building consent) - **Site context:** national-park, open-countryside, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(3), HE6(4), HE4(2) - **Development plan policies:** South Downs Local Plan 2014-33 (2019) SD5, SD12, SD13, SD1 - **Main issues:** special interest of Grade II listed building - **Tags:** tier-2, heritage-harm-decisive, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, he6-harm-graded, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, national-park, psed ## Summary Listed building consent for a through-floor lift in Adsdean House, a Grade II listed house in the South Downs National Park. The lift would cut through a c.1900 ceiling and floor and seal two doors. The inspector graded the harm as low but gave it "considerable importance and weight", found the informal public benefits and the appellant's access needs worth only modest weight, and dismissed the appeal. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The Council and the appellant have had opportunity to comment on this and I have taken into account any representations received" (DL ¶3). - **Significance of later fabric.** "The siting of the lift would be within a non-original later addition to the property. Nevertheless, given its age and history of this part of the property, it contributes positively to the evolution and architectural phasing of the building" (DL ¶10). - **HE6(3): HARM, low.** "I find the harm to the heritage asset to be, at a low level of harm but nevertheless is of considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶13). - **Public benefits: modest.** Tours and community meetings are "done on an informal ad-hoc basis, and as such, there is no guarantee of this continuing in any formal manner" (DL ¶14). - **HE6(4) / HE4(2): FAIL.** "in giving considerable importance and weight to the harm to the significance of this designated heritage asset, I find that this would not be outweighed by the public benefits that the proposal would generate" (DL ¶17); the harm "has not been supported by clear and convincing justification" (DL ¶18). - **Reversibility condition rejected** as not precise enough (DL ¶15). ## Planning balance HE6(4) harm against public benefits, with HE6(1) substantial weight to conservation and HE6(3) considerable weight to the harm stated correctly (DL ¶17). Personal access needs under the PSED counted as modest (DL ¶23). ## What made the difference The lift took historic fabric from a part of the house that is not original but is still part of its evolution, and the public benefits were informal and unsecured. Evidence that no less harmful route to the upper floor existed, or secured public access, might have tipped the balance. ## Transferable points - Later, non-original parts of a listed building can still carry significance through its "evolution and architectural phasing" (DL ¶10). - Informal, ad hoc public access is not a secured public benefit and gets modest weight (DL ¶14). - A reversibility condition fails if it cannot say when reinstatement is triggered (DL ¶15). ## Policy findings - **HE6(1): harm (substantial weight).** substantial weight to the asset's conservation stated (DL 17); loss of c.1900 lath and plaster ceiling and floorboards, doors sealed shut, "inelegant and awkward siting" (DL 8-11) - **HE6(3): harm (considerable weight).** "at a low level of harm but nevertheless is of considerable importance and weight" (DL 13) - **HE6(4): fail.** community use, tours and memorabilia informal and ad hoc, so modest weight; economic and housing-stock benefits; harm not outweighed (DL 14, 16-17) - **HE4(2): fail.** harm not supported by clear and convincing justification (DL 18) - **DM6: fail.** mapped: condition requiring reinstatement of floorboards and removal of the lift when no longer required not sufficiently precise (DL 15) - **PSED: benefit.** access benefit to the appellant (age/disability) given modest weight; limited evidence the lift is the only option (DL 22-23) ## Key facts - Grade II house of c.1850, enlarged by Norman Shaw 1877; lift sited in a later (c.1900) part that still contributes to the building's evolution (DL 6-10) - Being outside the list description does not mean a part lacks significance (DL 10) - National Park purpose to conserve cultural heritage engaged; SD1 not determinative for LBC (DL 19-21) - Parties invited to comment on the August 2026 Framework (DL 3) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6001939 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/177f7e3f-9299-45cd-bf8d-1305d85dd770 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6001939.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.