Resubmission of application 09/01838/FUL – conversion of garage to form new study / utility, plus first floor bedroom and ensuite extension. Additional garage, modified driveway and new front porch

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 25 March 2019 by Paul T Hocking BA MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 12 April 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/D3830/D/18/3218446 2 Meadow Drive, Lindfield RH16 2RT • 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 & Mrs M Middleton against the decision of Mid Sussex District Council. • The application Ref DM/18/3762, dated 12 September 2018, was refused by notice dated 7 November 2018. • The development proposed is described as the resubmission of application 09/01838/FUL – conversion of garage to form new study / utility, plus first floor bedroom and ensuite extension. Additional garage, modified driveway and new front porch. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for conversion of garage to form new study / utility, plus first floor bedroom and ensuite extension. Additional garage, modified driveway and new front porch at 2 Meadow Drive, Lindfield RH16 2RT in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref DM/18/3762, dated 12 September 2018, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Planning block & site location plans 1824/01 REV: D; Planning proposed details 1824/03 REV: C; Planning proposed garage details 1824/04 REV: B. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external finishes of the development hereby permitted shall match those used on the existing building. Procedural Matters 2. The appellant’s description of development on their planning application form refers to the proposal as the resubmission of an earlier scheme. I have used this description in the banner heading above. However, the description used by the Council on its Decision Notice is more concise and has been adopted by the appellants on their appeal form. In allowing the appeal, I have therefore used this description. Appeal Decision APP/D3830/D/18/3218446 2 3. In 2009 the Council granted planning permission at the appeal site Ref 09/01838FUL1 which has not been implemented. The appeal application consists of the same works to the dwelling albeit the detached garage is proposed in a different location. In determining the appeal application, the Council did not object to the works proposed to the dwelling. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area, having particular regard to the location of the garage. Reasons 5. The appeal site consists of a two-storey semi-detached property. Properties in the immediate area are of similar design and generally located in close proximity of the road frontage. The proposal relates to the conversion of an attached garage to living accommodation as well as a first-floor side extension, with Juliette balcony, and front porch. A detached garage is proposed adjacent to the front boundary which would be served by extending the driveway. 6. Owing to the curved layout of roads in the immediate locality, the relationship between dwellings and their garages differ in terms of location and orientation. The character of the area is therefore mixed and varied in this respect. 7. The appeal property has an unusually large garden as it is located adjacent to a culvert and stream. The frontage of the property is therefore longer than others in the immediate area and is currently enclosed to the road by means of a 1.8m high fence and mature hedging. This provides an unobtrusive frontage, including that of the adjoining property at No 1 Kidbrook. However, in my view this does not amount to a significant visual gap or open space in the context of the immediate locality. 8. The introduction of the garage would not be an unduly prominent feature or out of keeping with the character of the street-scene given the existing enclosure and size of appeal site. The openness of the locality would not be harmed. Whilst some of the existing boundary treatment would be removed, and so the garage would be visible, this is the case with other garages given the character of the area. 9. The proposed garage is a modest building in terms of scale and appearance and is typical of others in the immediate area. It would be set-back from the edge of the footway and have an overall height, according to the Council, of 3.4m. It would be sited close to the dwelling and consequently have an appropriate relationship with it. It would therefore address the character and scale of the surrounding buildings and incorporate well integrated parking that does not dominate the street environment. 10. The proposed works to the dwelling would be of a design and form that is appropriate to the character and proportions of the existing dwelling. Given their location, along with the separation distance involved, there would not be harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. Having visited the site, I therefore concur with the view of the Council. 1 Conversion of garage to form new study and utility, plus first floor extension to form new bedroom and ensuite. Additional detached garage, modified driveway and new porch roof. Appeal Decision APP/D3830/D/18/3218446 3 11. I therefore conclude that the development would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the area, having particular regard to the location of the garage. It would therefore accord with Policy DP26 of the Mid Sussex District Plan 2014 -2031, adopted March 2018, which requires, amongst other things, that development should address the character and scale of the surrounding buildings and incorporate well integrated parking that does not dominate the street environment. Conditions 12. The conditions are those suggested by the Council. In addition to the standard time limit condition it is necessary to specify the plans in the interests of certainty. A materials condition is also necessary to protect the character and appearance of the area. Conclusion 13. For these reasons and having regard to all other relevant matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. Paul T Hocking INSPECTOR