Front extension (ground floor) to extend the existing garage; side extension (first floor) over the existing garage and utility room; hip to gable loft conversion with dormers and a Juliet balcony

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 25 March 2026 by Lynne Evans BA MA MRTPI MRICS an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 07 April 2026 Appeal Ref: 6004876 5 The Holt, Haywards Heath RH16 4XR • 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 Mark McMillen against the decision of Mid Sussex District Council. • The application Ref is DM/25/1996. • The development proposed is front extension (ground floor) to extend the existing garage; side extension (first floor) over the existing garage and utility room; hip to gable loft conversion with dormers and a Juliet balcony. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. Revised plans were submitted during the course of the application to amend the width of the rear dormer. My decision is based on the plans as determined by the Council. Main Issue 3. The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the existing property and on the local area. Reasons 4. The appeal property is a semi-detached dwelling with an attached garage on the north side of The Holt and within a modern residential development of detached and semi-detached houses and small blocks of apartments. The front of the property faces south towards woodland. 5. The proposal would extend the garage forwards, with a first floor over the extended garage under a hipped roof, with a full length window to the front and a Juliette balcony and a rooflight to the rear. There would be a hip to gable loft extension to the main roof with a wide, flat roofed front dormer with a full length window and a Juliette balcony, and at the rear, a smaller, flat roofed dormer and adjoining rooflight. Materials would match existing. 6. The extension to and over the garage would continue to be set back from the front of the main property and would remain smaller in scale and height in relation to the rest of the dwelling. In terms of its overall scale, design and massing, it would remain subservient in form to the main property. As a result, it would respect the Appeal Decision 6004876 2 character and appearance of the existing property and of the local area. The Council has also raised no objection to this part of the proposal and there have also been similar extensions to properties in the surrounding area. 7. There are a mix of hipped and gable roofs within the immediate surrounding area, and the proposed hip to gable loft extension would be assimilated in the range of roof forms in the local area. It would respect the character and appearance of the local area. 8. Dormers at main roof level, both to the front and rear roofs, are a characteristic feature of the local residential development but are generally in scale and proportion to the roofs where they are sited. The scale and form of the rear dormer, together with the rooflight proposed to the extended main roof, would be modest in width and depth and would be set well in from the roof edges. It would respect the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and of the local area. The Council also raised no objection to the rear roof dormer. 9. The proposed front dormer would be very wide and deep as well as high. Its combined dimensions would be out of proportion with the scale of the extended main roof, and as a result it would be an overly prominent feature on the front roof slope. It would appear very bulky and overly dominant in relation to the proportions of the main roof and the existing house. As a result, it would not respect the character and appearance of the existing property, and its scale and massing would be visually discordant in the street scene. 10. I therefore conclude that the proposed development, and in particular the proposed front dormer, would not respect the character and appearance of the existing property and of the local area. This would conflict with Policy DP26 of the Mid Sussex District Plan 2018, Policies E9 and H9 of the Haywards Heath Neighbourhood Plan, the design principles set out in the Mid Sussex Design Guide 2020 and the National Planning Policy Framework and in particular Section 12, all of which, amongst other matters, seek a high standard of design which respects the local context. Other Considerations 11. Objections have been raised by residents to the rear in Buckeridge Way in respect of overlooking and loss of privacy as well as loss of outlook from the proposed rear dormer and extension to the garage. In terms of overlooking and loss of privacy, there is some overlooking as existing between windows and towards gardens. However, given the distance between the properties, and that the properties to the rear are set at a higher level compared with the appeal property, I do not consider that there would be a material change to the existing position, that would justify withholding planning permission. I also do not consider that there would be a material impact on outlook given the distances between properties and the scale of the extensions proposed to the appeal property. The Council has raised no objections in this regard. 12. The loss of a view is not a planning matter. 13. Given the siting of the property and the parking available at the site I do not consider that the proposal would lead to an unacceptable impact in terms of parking in the local area. Appeal Decision 6004876 3 Conclusion 14. For the reasons set out above and having regard to all other matters raised, including in representations, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. L J Evans INSPECTOR