For a rear hip to gable loft conversion with flat roof dormer to the side, to create an additional bedroom and an en-suite bathroom

Appeal Decision Site Visit made on 6 April 2021 by J E Jolly BA (Hons) MA MSc CIH MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 13 APRIL 2021 Appeal Ref: APP/D3830/D/21/3267095 33 Church Mead, Hassocks BN6 8BW • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Stephen Brewis against the decision of Mid Sussex District Council. • The application Ref DM/20/2988, dated 12 August 2020, was refused by notice dated 6 November 2020. • The development proposed is for a rear hip to gable loft conversion with flat roof dormer to the side, to create an additional bedroom and an en-suite bathroom. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matters 2. The Appellant submitted application ref: DM/20/2988 for consideration by Mid Sussex District Council on 12 August 2020. However, the council’s decision notice refers to a Supplementary Planning Document – the ‘Mid Sussex Design Guide’ (SPD) that was adopted in November 2020. As such, the Appellant contends that the SPD could not reasonably be relied upon by the council if the application had been determined in a timely manner before the adoption of the SPD. 3. Moreover, I note that the glossary included in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) explains that Supplementary Planning Documents add further detail to development plan policies but are not part of the Plan. 4. Therefore, notwithstanding the reference by the main parties to DG53 of the SPD which is relevant to the principles for conversions of traditional buildings with heritage value, rather than DG52 which is relevant to loft conversions and roof extensions, in this case, whether the application was determined in a timely manner or not, Policy DP26 of the Mid Sussex District Plan, 2018, (MSDP) and Policy 9 of the Hassocks Neighbourhood Plan, 2020, (HNP) are the principal policies that must be relied upon. I have proceeded accordingly. Main Issue 5. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area and the host dwelling. Appeal Decision APP/D3830/D/21/3267095 2 Reasons 6. The appeal property at 33 Church Mead is a semi-detached bungalow style dwelling that is located in an area that is predominantly typified with bungalow style brick and tile properties, some of which have tile hung extensions to the side and rear. The area is further characterised by dwellings that have open plan gardens and parking areas to the front and relatively generous gardens to the rear. 7. At my site visit I noticed that the development appears to have been completed and retrospective planning is now sought. The development includes a rear hip to gable loft conversion with a flat roof side tile hung dormer that has been completed in materials similar to the host dwelling and the surrounding area. There is a window to the side elevation of the dormer, while the elevation of the development to the rear is blank. 8. The development has been constructed in an established residential area. As such, the general principle of development on the appeal site is not at odds with the surrounding area. Indeed, the Appellant has brought to my attention a number of side and rear extensions nearby that have been constructed in materials that broadly accord with the appearance of the host building and the development before me. However, I have limited details of those individual schemes, and moreover, I cannot be certain if they were considered under the same development plan as the development at No 33 or not. Therefore, I have considered the development on its own planning merits. As such, while the rear of the development at No 33 can only be glimpsed from the surrounding area, the box style dormer to the side of the host dwelling is of some considerable scale and mass that is positioned in relatively close proximity to both the existing ridge and eaves line. 9. Indeed, notwithstanding that the blank rear elevation and side window are likely to minimise the effect of the development on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers, the development is nonetheless incongruous with nearby side dormers that are more modest in extent or positioned lower on the host roof scape. Therefore, despite the increased set back from the front elevation of the host property, the development is overly conspicuous in the surrounding open plan built environment, and hence is at odds with the immediate surrounding area. Consequently, the development is a prominent extension that is discordant with the scale of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. I conclude therefore, that the design and bulk of the development harms the character and appearance of the area. 10. Accordingly, the development is contrary to Policy DP26 of the MSDP, which says, amongst other things that all development and surrounding spaces, including alterations and extensions to existing buildings and replacement dwellings, will be well designed and reflect the distinctive character of the towns and villages while being sensitive to the countryside, and Policy 9 of the HNP which requires that development supports the character and scale of the surrounding buildings and landscape. 11. For similar reasons, the development does not meet the requirements of Paragraph 127 (c) of the Framework which requires that developments are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting. Appeal Decision APP/D3830/D/21/3267095 3 Other Matters 12. I note the conclusions of Hassocks Parish Council and the inclusion of letters in support of the development. However, given my findings above and the fact that the occupancy of neighbouring properties may change over time these matters singularly or in combination do not overcome the harm to the character and appearance to the area I have found. Conclusions 13. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. J E JOLLY INSPECTOR