Two-storey side extension and loft conversion with rear dormer

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 26 May 2026 by Martin Andrews MA(Planning) Bsc(Econ) DipTP & DipTP(Dist) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 15 June 2026 Appeal Ref: 6005828 23 Lustrells Crescent, Saltdean, Brighton BN2 8AR • 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 Alain and Corinne Vincent against the decision of Brighton & Hove City Council. • The application is Ref. BH2025/00574. • The development proposed is a two-storey side extension and loft conversion with rear dormer. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed, Main Issues 2. The main issues are (i) the effect of the proposed extension on the living conditions for the occupiers of No. 2 Chorley Avenue as regards outlook and a perceived loss of privacy, and (ii) the effect on a tree covered by a tree preservation order (‘TPO’). Reasons 3. The appeal property is on a corner plot at the junction of Lustrells Crescent and Chorley Avenue. The proposal is for a two-storey extension to the north-east flank of the building and the construction of a dormer on the rearward, north-west, elevation of the existing dwelling, which I observed on my visit was tight to the boundary with No. 2 Chorley Avenue, a bungalow. The Council objects to both the proposed dormer and the extension, with a reference to an increased potential for overlooking and a loss of outlook, in both cases for the occupiers of the neighbouring bungalow. There is also concern that a TPO tree may be harmed. 4. On the first issue and turning firstly to the proposed extension, although this is to the side of the appeal dwelling the orientation is such that it is equivalent to a rear extension projecting well beyond the rear of No. 2. The effect of this two-storey addition so close to the boundary would be to introduce significant enclosure to the rear windows of the bungalow and to the area of the garden closest to the dwelling. 5. The loss of outlook including of some of the skyline to the east caused by the extension would also reduce the extent of morning sunlight and lessen daylight. Neither the Council nor the appellant has sought to quantify these effects from the analysis of published data by the Building Research Establishment, but I am nevertheless satisfied that the harm caused would be significant. I also share the Council’s view that the additional height and bulk would be overbearing, especially as it would elongate the existing wall that runs parallel to the flank of the bungalow. Appeal Decision Ref. 6005828 2 6. Furthermore, the existing domination of the appeal dwelling would not only be increased by the proposed extension, but also by the bulk of the proposed dormer which would extend for much of the existing dwelling’s side roof. I acknowledge that the dormer would be set up from the eaves, but in views from the area of the bungalow’s rear garden closest to the appeal property, the additional bulk of this vertical projection from the existing sloping roof would be readily apparent. 7. The proposed three windows to a bedroom, landing and bathroom would facilitate oblique views to the rear garden of No. 2 Chorley Avenue and thereby add to the existing views from the existing smaller first floor windows. As a result, there would be a potential for more overlooking of the bungalow, although because of obscure glazing to the bathroom and the frontward position of the bedroom this would be more of a perceived than actual loss of privacy. Nonetheless, this would still be harmful, whilst the bulk of the dormer in conjunction with the extension would add to the appeal dwelling’s built form and thereby increase the existing domination of its neighbour. 8. I have carefully considered the grounds of appeal but can find nothing to outweigh my findings above. This includes the ‘precedents’ referred to in Section 6 of the appeal statement which in my view include differences to this appeal that preclude a meaningful comparison. Accordingly, I conclude that the proposal would unacceptably harm the living conditions for the occupiers of No. 2 Chorley Avenue. This would be in harmful conflict with Policies DM20 & DM21 of the Brighton & Hove City Plan Part Two 2022 and with paragraph 135f) of Government policy in the National Planning Policy Framework, December 2024. 9. Turning more briefly to the second issue of the effect of the proposed development on a TPO tree, a Monterey Cypress within the garden of the adjoining No. 25 Lustrells Crescent to the north, the Officer’s Report and Notice of Refusal cite insufficient information as to the proposed extension’s effect on the root area of this tree. 10. Given the tree’s proximity to the shared boundary with No. 23 it is reasonable to assume that the root protection area extends into the appellant’s garden. The appeal statement refers to a 15m distance between the tree and the edge of the proposed scheme and argues there would be no adverse effect. Be that as it may, I consider that under the objectives and requirements of Local Plan Policy DM22 it is reasonable in this case for the Council to expect the submission of an Arboricultural Impact Assessment (‘AIA’) as part of the application. Even if a permission was not precluded by an AIA, it would in the absence of a refusal under issue (i), inform appropriate conditions to prevent harm both during and building work and thereafter. Conclusion 11. For the reasons set out above, the appeal fails. Martin Andrews INSPECTOR Appeal Decision Ref. 6005828 3