Alterations to an existing residential dwelling, including proposed first floor shower room with extended loft space dormer to accommodate, minor roof /elevation alteration to suit, new double garage to replace existing

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 9 June 2026 by J Kirkaldy BSc (Hons) PGDip MRTPI Decision by David Cross BA(Hons) PgDip(Dist) TechIOA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 6th August 2026 Appeal Ref: 6008111 The Old Golf House, Chapel Lane, Forest Row RH18 5ND • 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 Mark Long, Marlon Haus Ltd, against the decision of Wealden District Council. • The application Ref is WD/2025/2507/F. • The development proposed is alterations to an existing residential dwelling, including proposed first floor shower room with extended loft space dormer to accommodate, minor roof /elevation alteration to suit, new double garage to replace existing. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to the alterations to an existing residential dwelling, including proposed first floor shower room with extended loft space dormer to accommodate, minor roof/elevation alteration to suit. 2. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted insofar as it relates to new double garage to replace existing at The Old Golf House, Chapel Lane, Forest Row RH18 5ND in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref WD/2025/2507/F, 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 development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans insofar as the double garage only: Page 1 (Site/Block Plan and Locality Plan), Page 1A (Site Plan), Page 7 (Proposed Garage Plan and Elevation). Appeal Procedure 3. The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. Preliminary Matter and Main Issues 4. The proposal is located within the High Weald National Landscape (HWNL). Whilst the Council has not specifically referred to the impact of the proposal on the HWNL within the reason for refusal, concerns have been raised in the Officer’s report regarding the effect on the designated landscape. As the decision-maker, I am required to have regard to the statutory duty to further the purposes of and conserve and enhance the natural beauty of Protected Landscapes, and therefore this matter is considered further within the main issues set out below. Appeal Decision 6008111 2 5. The Council has not objected to the proposed garage. I have no reason to disagree as it would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the host dwelling or surrounding area. My recommendation therefore focuses on the effect of the proposed enlarged front dormer on the character and appearance of the host dwelling, a non-designated heritage asset (NDHA) and the surrounding area, having particular regard to the HWNL. Reasons for the Recommendation 6. The appeal site comprises a detached one and a half storey dwelling and is located within a predominantly residential area with a verdant, landscaped character. The dwelling is positioned well back from Chapel Lane, which sits at a slightly higher level than the dwelling, within a spacious plot. Vehicular access, parking and a garage are located to the rear of the dwelling with access along Highgate Road. 7. The dwelling has been identified as a NDHA although limited supporting information in respect of it being a NDHA has been provided. Nevertheless, the dwelling displays a clear historic form, incorporating later single storey and roof dormer additions. The front elevation is characterised by prominent chimney stacks, a front-facing gable and a distinctive projecting element with a hexagonal pitched roof, incorporating decorative detailing that forms a strong focal point. The use of traditional materials and features contributes to the building’s aesthetic and historical value, while its spacious plot and verdant, landscaped surroundings further enhance its significance and contribution to the character and appearance of the area. 8. The existing dormer on the front elevation comprises a flat roofed structure clad in hanging tiles and set below the main roof ridge. It is discreetly positioned behind the hexagonal pitched roof. The proposal would substantially enlarge this feature by extending it across much of the front roof slope and increasing its depth to align with the front-facing gable. By reason of its increased width, depth and prominent siting on the principal elevation, the proposed dormer would represent a substantial addition that would occupy a significant proportion of the front roof plane. As a result, the enlarged dormer would appear visually dominant and would compete with, rather than remain subordinate to, the original dwelling. 9. Whilst some elements of the existing hexagonal roof form would remain visible, the enlarged dormer would interrupt and diminish the prominence of this distinctive architectural feature, particularly when viewed from the side elevations. The proposal would erode the legibility of the original roof design, which currently contributes positively to its character and appearance. In addition, the increased scale of the dormer would reduce the visual prominence of the existing chimney stack, a feature which currently contributes to the property’s architectural composition and roofscape. Furthermore, whilst the use of matching materials and fenestration may assist in integrating the proposal with the existing property, it would not overcome concerns regarding the scale, bulk and design of the dormer. 10. The introduction of a pitched roof over part of the existing flat roof ground floor extension would not sufficiently mitigate the scale and massing of the proposal. Despite the stepped roof profile that would be created as a result, the dormer would still appear bulky when viewed from the public realm. Appeal Decision 6008111 3 11. In the case of a NDHA, the National Planning Policy Framework (‘the Framework) advises that a balancing exercise between heritage harm and public benefits is not required. Instead, paragraph 216 advises a balanced judgement having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset. In this instance, I find that the proposal would result in substantial enlargement of the front dormer that would appear as a dominant feature within the principal roof slope, diminishing the prominence of the dwelling's distinctive hexagonal roof form and reducing the visual contribution of the existing chimney stack to the roofscape. As these features contribute to the architectural interest and significance of The Old Golf House, the proposal would result in moderate harm to the significance of the NDHA. 12. The appeal site lies within the HWNL. The primary purpose of the designation of the HWNL is to conserve and enhance its natural beauty1. In performing functions that affect land in National Landscapes decision-makers must ‘seek to further’ the purposes for which these areas are designated2. In addition to this statutory duty, the Framework requires great weight to be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Landscapes. 13. The High Weald National Landscape Management Plan (2024-2029) identifies the special qualities of the landscape as including historic settlements set within a rural and distinctive landscape, characterised by prominent expanses of woodland. It describes the key characteristics of settlements within the HWNL that contribute to its scenic beauty as having a verdant character, with substantial soft landscaping, including grass verges, hedgerows defining front curtilages, and mature tree canopies that break up the built form. 14. The proposal would result in a visually prominent and unsympathetic alteration to a non-designated heritage asset within the HWNL, harming its character and appearance. Given the positive contribution the dwelling makes to the scenic and historic qualities of the HWNL, the proposal would fail to conserve or enhance these qualities and would therefore be detrimental to the area's special character. 15. As the proposed double garage is physically and functionally severable from the enlargement of the loft dormer, together with the associated roof and elevation alterations, it is capable of being built independently. A split decision would be appropriate in this instance. 16. The appellant refers to the improved usability and standard of accommodation provided by the proposal. However, this private benefit would not be sufficient to outweigh the harm I have identified to character and appearance. The appellant also states that the application received no objections and was supported by the Parish Council, but these matters do not lead me to a different conclusion on the harm I have identified. 17. I conclude that the proposed enlargement of the loft dormer, together with the associated roof and elevation alterations, would harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling, a NDHA, and the surrounding area, with particular regard to the HWNL. The proposal would conflict with saved Policies GD1, EN1, EN27 and HG10 of the Wealden Local Plan December (1998) (LP), Spatial Planning Objectives SPO1, SPO2 and SPO13 and Policy WCS14 of the adopted Wealden Core Strategy Local Plan February (2013) (CS) which seek 1 As set out in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. 2 Section 11A(2) of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 and section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (as amended by section 245 of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023). Appeal Decision 6008111 4 amongst other matters to protect the character of the landscape and historic environment and secure high-quality design that is proportionate and respectful of the host dwelling. It would also conflict with the Wealden Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2008) (SPD), which seeks to ensure that dormers remain subordinate to the host dwelling, and with the Framework, which seeks to achieve well-designed places and conserve the historic environment. 18. The proposed double garage would not adversely affect the character and appearance of the host dwelling, and it would preserve the landscape and scenic beauty of the HWNL. It would therefore be in accordance with saved Policy GD1, EN1, EN27, and HG10 of the LP and Spatial Planning Objectives SPO1, SPO2 and SPO13 and Policy WCS14 of the CS and the SPD as described above. Conditions 19. For the approved element of the proposal, conditions relating to the commencement of development and a condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans are necessary as this provides clarity. Conclusion and Recommendation 20. For the reasons given above I recommend that the appeal should be allowed in part and dismissed in part. J Kirkaldy APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 21. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed in part and dismissed in part. David Cross INSPECTOR