Loft conversion with new trussed roof to replace existing roof in poor repair

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 24 February 2026 by J Davis BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 27 February 2026 Appeal Ref: 6002263 2 Wyberlye Road, Burgess Hill, West Sussex, RH15 8HX • 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 Simeon Wheeler against the decision of Mid Sussex District Council. • The application Ref is DM/25/1852. • The development proposed is Loft conversion with new trussed roof to replace existing roof in poor repair. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and on the surrounding area. Reasons 3. The appeal site comprises a bungalow which has a conservatory extension on its southern side and occupies a prominent corner plot at the junction of Wyberlye Road and Leylands Road. The bungalow has a low hipped roof which is characteristic of the detached and semi-detached bungalows in Wyberlye Road which also display a uniform building line. 4. The proposal is for a loft conversion with new trussed roof. The roof would be raised in height with the low hipped roof replaced by a barn-hipped roof form. First floor windows would be inserted into the north and south elevations enabling 2no. bedrooms to be provided within the converted loft space. 5. Policy DP26 of the Mid Sussex District Plan 2014-2031 (2018) (DP) requires (amongst other matters), alterations and extensions to existing buildings to be well designed and reflect the distinctive character of towns and villages. Development should be of a high quality design and layout and should create a sense of place whilst addressing the character and scale of the surrounding buildings and landscape. 6. The Mid Sussex Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document 2020 (SPD) provides useful planning guidance for development, including residential extensions and alterations. Principle DG52 advises that roof extensions and dormers windows that alter the existing ridge of the roof or significantly alter the roof profile will not normally be acceptable, particularly on the front roof slope, and where there is a Appeal Decision 6002263 2 strong established roofline. Principle DG49 requires, amongst other things, that extensions should respond to the design of the original dwelling and be designed to be well integrated with the existing scale, form and massing. 7. The proposed new roof would have a ridge height of about 6.4m. The replacement of the existing shallow hipped roof with a barn hipped roof would significantly alter the dwelling’s profile and together with the significant increase in height, would result in a bulkier roof form. The proposed new roof would appear disproportionately large in relation to the original dwelling and would result in a top- heavy appearance relative to the low eaves height of the dwelling. It would not appear well integrated and would significantly overwhelm the original scale and form of the dwelling and consequently would be harmful to its original character and appearance. 8. The proposed roof form with its greater height and bulky barn hipped roof is not characteristic of other properties in Wyberlye Road from where the main context of the site is derived. It would appear incongruous with the design of most other dwellings in the road and would be unbalanced in appearance with the bungalow at 1 Wyberlye Road on the opposing corner which maintains its hipped roof profile. In failing to respond positively to the distinctive character of the area and the scale and character of surrounding buildings, the proposal would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area. 9. I am aware that several dwellings in Wyberlye Road have been altered and extended including through roof and dormer extensions. However, most of these have retained the hipped roof form of the dwelling. A notable exception is at 7 Wyberlye Road where a loft conversion has resulted in a barn hipped roof which has unbalanced the appearance of the semi-detached pair and is not a good example of high quality development. I also note that the Council state that many of the alterations that have taken place pre-date the adoption of the Design Guide SPD. I am therefore not persuaded that these examples provide support for the appeal proposal. 10. I also acknowledge that No 185 Leylands Road to the west of the appeal property is a chalet style dwelling and the side gable can be seen from Wyberlye Road. However, No 185 has a different context to the appeal proposal, being more closely related to the highly mixed character and appearance of Leylands Road including the two storey dwelling at No 187. Moreover, the splayed boundary of the appeal site with Leylands Road is well screened by hedging and the appeal property has a much closer visual association with Wyberlye Road from where it is also accessed. 11. The appellant has also highlighted other examples of ‘barn-hipped’ roof forms in Leylands Road and nearby St Johns Avenue. However, these roads are more varied in character and appearance than Wyberlye Road, containing a mix of bungalows, chalets and two storey dwellings that display a wide variety of roof forms. I therefore afford little weight to these examples. 12. I therefore conclude that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. Accordingly, it would be contrary to Policy DP26 of the DP and the similar design objectives set out in the SPD and the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) which aims to achieve well designed and beautiful buildings and places. Appeal Decision 6002263 3 Other Matters 13. The appellant considers various extensions could be constructed under permitted development rights although the precise nature, scope and lawfulness of these have not been presented to me. In any event I am required to determine the appeal on its own merits. 14. The appellant has highlighted that the proposed new roof would be compliant with current building regulations for insulation and would be more energy efficient. The proposal would make better use of the site and would provide improved living accommodation for the appellant and his family although there are likely to be other ways that this can be achieved. There would also be a short-term boost to the local economy during construction. All of these considerations are positive aspects of the scheme but even in combination do not outweigh the harm that would be caused to the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and surrounding area. Conclusion 15. For the above reasons, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. J Davis INSPECTOR