Construction of detached annexe
📊
See the success rate & inspector analytics
Free to view — just create an account, no payment needed.
Sign Up FreeTechnical Issues Heatmap
Flood Risk
Policy Weight
Character & Appearance
Inspector’s Reasoning
Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 15 December 2025
by C Coles MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 15th June 2026
Appeal Ref: APP/P1425/D/25/3373143
The Old Mill Bungalow, Barcombe Mills Road, Barcombe, East Sussex BN8 5BS
• 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 Mr and Mrs Bennett against the decision of Lewes District Council.
• The application Ref is LW/25/0253.
• The development proposed is construction of detached annexe.
This decision is issued in accordance with section 56 (2) of the Planning and
Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 as amended and supersedes that issued on 9
April 2026.
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for replacement of
existing outbuilding with detached annexe to the side of the main house with
decking linking both and including associated landscaping at The Old Mill
Bungalow, Barcombe Mills Road, Barcombe, East Sussex BN8 5BS in accordance
with the terms of the application, Ref LW/25/0253, 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 annexe hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the dwelling
permitted under references LW/23/0414 and LW/2024/0122, has been
substantially completed and occupied.
3) The external materials of the annexe hereby permitted shall match those
approved in the dwelling permitted under references LW/23/0414 and
LW/2024/0122.
4) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with
drawing nos: Proposed Elevations (09 rev P3 – Proposed S-W Elevations
Sheet 2), Proposed Elevations (08 rev P3 – Proposed N-W Elevations Sheet
1), 06 rev P1 – Indicative Foundation Plan, Proposed Block Plan (04 rev P2 –
Proposed Block Plan 1:200), Proposed Floor Plans (05 rev P3 – Proposed
Roof and Floor Plans), Survey Plan (03 rev P2 Existing Site Survey),
Proposed Block Plan (02 rev P2 – Proposed Block Plan 1:500), Location
Plan (01 rev P2 – Location Plan), Flood Risk Assessment (3185/RE/04-
23/01).
5) The development shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted flood
risk assessment (FRA) (ref 3185/RE/04-23/01, dated June 2023) and the
following mitigation measures it details:
Appeal Decision APP/P1425/D/25/3373143
2
• Finished floor levels for the main building and annexe shall be set no
lower than 8.19 metres above Ordnance Datum (AOD).
• The void maintenance plan outlined in Appendix A of the above FRA
shall be maintained throughout the lifetime of the development.
These mitigation measures shall be fully implemented prior to occupation and
subsequently in accordance with the scheme’s timing/phasing arrangements.
The measures detailed above shall be retained and maintained thereafter
throughout the lifetime of the development.
6) The annexe shall be used only for purposes ancillary to the enjoyment of the
host dwellinghouse and shall not be used as a separate unit of
accommodation.
Preliminary Matter
2. The description of the development in the banner heading is taken from the
application form. The Council has used an amended form of wording on the
decision notice which I consider more accurately reflects the development and
therefore I have used this in my formal decision.
Main Issues
3. The main issues are:
• Flood risk; and
• whether the proposal would comply with development plan policy on
residential annexes.
Reasons
4. The appeal site comprises an existing detached single storey dwelling with
detached outbuilding within a large garden accessed via a long private track.
Planning permission has been granted for a replacement dwelling on the site
(LW/2023/0414, amended by LW/2024/0122). Planning permission was granted
for a garage in 2024 and this development has commenced. The appeal site lies
within a countryside location.
5. The proposed development is for an annexe with a ground floor comprising a
kitchen/dining area and living area, main bedroom and bathroom and a first floor
mezzanine area in the roof space with a guest bedroom and en suite as well as a
study. The annexe would be linked to the main dwelling via external decking and is
designed to enable multigenerational living for the appellants family. The overall
floor area of the annexe would be 84sqm and the height would be 6.9m. The
annexe would be constructed of the same materials as the replacement dwelling
and the appeal has been determined on this basis.
Flood risk
6. The proposed annexe would fall within Flood Zone 3. The appellants did not
submit a development specific Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) for the proposal but
submitted a site specific FRA prepared for the replacement dwelling on the site
and confirmed the proposal would follow the same design approach as agreed
with the Environment Agency (EA) for the replacement dwelling. The appellants
Appeal Decision APP/P1425/D/25/3373143
3
consider that as the annexe would be tied to the occupation of the main dwelling,
the approach of submitting the FRA for the main dwelling for this appeal would be
acceptable. The appellants have also stated they would be happy for a similar
condition as was placed on the main dwelling in relation to flood risk to be applied
to the annexe.
7. The EA in their consultation response which was on the Council website for the
appellants to view, have requested a FRA for the annexe. However, the appellants
have submitted a site specific FRA which the EA did not acknowledge. I have
reconsulted the EA with the submitted FRA and the EA have responded with no
objection to the proposed development subject to conditions. I am therefore
satisfied the proposal would not put the proposed occupants of the annexe at risk
of flooding and would therefore comply with Core Policy 12 of the Lewes District
Local Plan Part 1 (LLPP1) which seeks to reduce the number of properties that are
at an unacceptable risk of flooding.
Development plan policies on residential annexes
8. Policy DM29 of the Lewes Local Plan Part 2 (LLP2) sets out the key
considerations in relation to garages and other buildings ancillary to existing
dwellings, noting they will be permitted where given criteria are met, namely:
(1) The size, scale, siting and design relates satisfactorily to the existing dwelling
and its curtilage, the established street scene, and the character of the locality;
(2) The use of materials is sympathetic to the character and appearance of the
existing dwelling.
Outside the planning boundaries…..garages and other ancillary buildings should
be subordinate in scale and proportion to, and located in close proximity to, the
principal dwelling; the use of ancillary accommodation as a separate dwelling will
not be permitted and proposals should not be of a size or design, or be capable of
severance, to form an additional dwelling or dwellings.
9. It is common ground that the proposed annexe would be subordinate in footprint
and height to the replacement dwelling and would relate well to the replacement in
terms of design and materiality.
10. Whilst the proposed annexe may be large, it remains smaller and subordinate to
the replacement dwelling and would share the same access, parking and amenity
space as the main dwelling, albeit with space to the side of the annexe which
would be more private. The annexe would also drain foul and surface water back
to the main house. The proposed positioning of the annexe and with a shared
means of pedestrian access as the main dwelling demonstrates the annexe has
not been designed to be sold off or let.
11. The site is large enough to accommodate an annexe of the size proposed. Whilst
in a different location on the site it would be possible and practical to sever the
annexe from the main dwelling, in these site specific circumstances it would be
neither practical or desirable to do so.
12. The positioning of the annexe to the west of the replacement dwelling would mean
that the residents of the annexe would need to walk directly in front of the main
dwelling for pedestrian access, utilising the shared decking. The parking for the
main dwelling and the annexe would be shared and located to the east of the main
Appeal Decision APP/P1425/D/25/3373143
4
dwelling with no direct vehicular access to the annexe. It is also highly unlikely that
a new vehicular access directly to the annexe could be provided due to the
gradient of the site to the south of the annexe and the main dwelling and its
location within the flood plain. Significant engineering works would be required to
create a new access to the annexe which would require planning permission which
would be under the control of the Council. For the reasons outlined above, it is
highly unlikely the annexe would be able to be severed from the main dwelling.
13. The appellants have demonstrated their willingness to have a restrictive condition
on the use of the annexe as ancillary accommodation enabling the Council to
further control the use of the annexe and prevent it being severed from the main
dwelling. In any event, the appellants have applied for an annexe and therefore the
appeal should be taken at face value. The Council has enforcement powers in the
event that the proposed development is not used as ancillary accommodation to
the host dwelling.
14. In conclusion, the proposed development would meet the development plan
criteria contained in policy DM29 of the LLP2 which permits ancillary buildings to
existing dwellings.
Conditions
15. I have had regard to the various planning conditions that have been suggested by
the Council and appellant and have considered them against the tests in the
Framework and the advice in the Planning Practice Guidance.
16. In the interests of certainty, I have imposed conditions specifying the relevant
drawings, time limits and materials.
17. The appeal has been assessed on the basis that the replacement dwelling will be
constructed. A condition is therefore necessary to ensure that the annexe is not
occupied until the replacement dwelling has been substantially completed and
occupied.
18. To reduce the risk of flooding to the proposed development and future occupants,
a condition is imposed requiring the proposal to be carried out in accordance with
the Flood Risk Assessment provided.
19. In order to prevent the creation of a separate dwelling on the site, a condition is
imposed limiting the use of the annexe to purposes incidental to the enjoyment of
the host dwelling and shall not be used as a separate unit of accommodation.
Conclusion
20. For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.
C Coles
INSPECTOR
Expert Representation
Don't leave your appeal to chance.
Inspectors are inconsistent. We build a technical defense using precedents from our 182,000+ case archive.
No win, no fee Householder representation — you only pay if you win.