Proposed loft conversion incorporating hip to gable alteration. Removal of hipped roofs to the rear and creation of a balcony at second floor level

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: 6002217 22 St Wilfrids Road, Burgess Hill, West Sussex, RH15 8BD • 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 B Webb against the decision of Mid Sussex District Council. • The application Ref is DM/25/2010. • The development proposed is described as ‘proposed loft conversion incorporating hip to gable alteration. Removal of hipped roofs to the rear and creation of a balcony at second floor level. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues are: - the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area; and - the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings with particular reference to privacy. Reasons Character and appearance 3. The appeal concerns a two storey, semi-detached dwelling sited in a row of houses of a similar character and appearance. The dwelling adjoins 24 St Wilfrids Road with a hipped roof covering both properties. The appeal dwelling has also been extended to the rear by way of two storey, hipped roof extensions. Nos 22 and 24 are at the end of a row of semi-detached houses that front onto a shallow crescent. They are positioned broadly level with Nos 26 and 28 to the east but are stagged beyond the rear elevation of the row of dwellings to the west. Most of the dwellings on the southern side of St Wilfrids Road benefit from deep rear gardens. 4. The proposal involves a hip to gable extension which the Council has raised no objection to. Whilst the proposed extension would unbalance the roof form of the semi-detached pair, there are several examples within the same row of houses where a similar hip to gable extension has taken place to one half of the semi- detached pair such as at Nos 18 and 28, resulting in a similar unbalanced appearance. I therefore concur that the proposed hip to gable alteration would not be harmful to the street scene. Appeal Decision 6002217 2 5. The proposal involves a shallow first floor infill extension which would ‘square-off’ the rear elevation of the dwelling. A dormer window is proposed across the width of the roof and the hipped roofs above the existing two storey extensions to the rear would be removed, resulting in a flat roof which would then be enclosed and used as a balcony. 6. The proposed dormer would be set down from the ridge of the dwelling but it would extend across virtually the entire width of the roof slope. It would also extend down to meet the two storey eaves of the dwelling to enable access onto the proposed rear balcony via large double doors. 7. The dormer would therefore cover a significant proportion of the rear roof creating a dominant feature as a result of its size and bulky, box-like appearance. Its overall dominance would be further accentuated by the large double doors resulting in a top-heavy appearance. The dormer would significantly alter the roof profile of the building and would be out of scale and character with the roofscape and proportions of the dwelling and accordingly, would fail to accord with the advice set out in Principle DG52 of the Mid Sussex Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2020) (SPD). 8. The proposed balcony would be at second storey level, above the existing two storey extensions and the proposed first floor addition. The balcony would extend across much of the width of the dwelling with only a small set in from the external flank wall and the shared boundary with No 24. As a result of its height above ground, considerable width and depth and high glazed enclosures, it would be a visually prominent and dominant feature which would be considerably at odds with the character and appearance of the host dwelling and others in the area. 9. In combination, the proposed rear dormer and extensive flat roof and balcony at second storey level would be overly dominant and incongruous in appearance and consequently would be harmful to the character and appearance of the existing dwelling. Views of the development would be obtainable from The Drive and surrounding private gardens and visual harm would be caused to the existing rear garden environment and surrounding area. 10. I acknowledge that there are some examples of dormer windows in the immediate area, including several visible from the appeal site, on properties in The Drive and on the rear elevation of dwellings further along St Wilfrids Road. I have no information before me regarding the planning history of these additions and from what I could see, none of these roof extensions are directly comparable with the appeal proposal as they do not appear to combine with a balcony or roof terrace of the scale proposed. 11. The appellant has also referenced an appeal decision in Brighton for a roof terrace. However, I have no further details of this proposal and are unable to conclude whether there are any similarities with the appeal scheme. The totality of the proposal also goes beyond the type of development that in many cases can be carried out under permitted development rights1. In any case, I am required to determine the appeal on its own merits. 1 In accordance with the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) Appeal Decision 6002217 3 12. I therefore conclude that the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. It would be contrary to Policy DP26 of the Mid Sussex District Plan 2014-2031 (2018) (DP) which, amongst other matters, seeks high quality design and respect for the distinctive character of towns and villages and local context. It would also be contrary to similar design objectives set out in Principles DG49 and DG52 of the SPD and the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) insofar as it aims to achieve well designed and beautiful buildings and places. Living conditions 13. The proposed balcony would be enclosed by obscure glass privacy screens. The side panels would have a height of about 1.9m and would therefore prevent direct overlooking into the closest part of the rear gardens of neighbouring properties. 14. Given the rear screen’s lower height of just over a metre, the balcony would however offer angled views over neighbouring gardens to the side. A significant proportion of the rear gardens to the side would be overlooked to a greater extent than the level of mutual overlooking that already occurs from first floor windows. This would particularly be the case in relation to Nos 24, 26 and 28 St Wilfrids Road to the east which are sited level with the appeal property. Some overlooking of the rear gardens of Nos 18 and 20 would also occur, however this would be less harmful to the living conditions of the occupiers of those dwellings as only the rear section of their long gardens would be impacted. The dwelling to the south is sited a sufficient distance from the rear elevation of the appeal property so that any views from the balcony would be at distance and would be unlikely to result in a significant loss of privacy to the occupiers of that dwelling. 15. Whilst I agree with the Council’s assessment that the proposed extensions and other alterations would not result in a significant loss of light to neighbouring dwellings this does not alter my concerns set out above regarding loss of privacy and the harm this would cause to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. 16. I therefore conclude that the proposal would be contrary to Policy DP26 of the DP which amongst other matters, seeks to ensure that development does not cause significant harm to the amenities of existing nearby residents, taking into account the impact on privacy. Conclusion 17. For the above reasons, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. J Davis INSPECTOR