Single storey extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 2 July 2026 by C J Leigh BSc(Hons) MPhil MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 20 July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6009458 13 Fairlawn Crescent, East Grinstead, West Sussex, RH19 1NX • 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 Mrs Fiona Fox against the decision of Mid Sussex District Council. • The application Ref is DM/26/0076. • The development proposed is a single storey extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey extension at 13 Fairlawn Crescent, East Grinstead, West Sussex, RH19 1NX in accordance with the terms of the application ref DM/26/0076, 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 materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. 3) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: EG.FF.25/P/01, EG.FF.25/P/02, EG.FF.25/P/03, EG.FF.25/P/04. Main issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a bungalow and fronts a road that gently rises and curves. The wider area is characterised by bungalows and I saw a number have been extended to the side and rear. Nevertheless, there remains a consistent character of bungalows of similar scale and general form, set back from the road to provide a spacious appearance. 4. The proposed extension to No. 13 would see the demolition of an existing garage and be situated to the side and rear of the property. It would have a similar roof profile to the existing dwelling but lower ridge height. It would be visible from the road but have little impact on the area: the extension is set well-back from the front elevation. These properties of the extension, along with the footprint being notably Appeal Decision 6009458 2 smaller than the existing dwelling, combine to present an extension that would be clearly subordinate in scale to the host building. The form and siting of the proposal sees an extension deeper into the plot, away from the dwelling, with the original form of the property clearly visible; there is no ‘wraparound’ effect that would lead to an excessive scale of addition or inappropriately designed extension. 5. The proposal is well-designed and suitable in form, siting and scale for the bungalow and the wider area. There would be very limited effect on the character of the area due to the siting and, when seen, would reflect other changes in the area that have occurred and have similarly not had an adverse impact upon that character. This includes the side and rear extensions in close vicinity to the appeal property. 6. I therefore conclude on the main issue that the proposed development would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the area, and hence would comply with the requirements of DP26 of the Mid Sussex District Plan (2018) which, amongst other matters, promotes well-designed development and protects the visual quality of the built environment. It would also be consistent with the design principles for residential extensions as set out in DG49, DG50 and DG51 of the Mid Sussex Design Guide (2020) supplementary planning document, the general thrust of which is to ensure extensions respond to the design of the original dwelling, are well-integrated to the dwelling, and do not have an adverse impact on the street scene. 7. I have attached a condition requiring matching materials, to ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development. A condition has been attached specifying the approved drawings in the interests of precision. 8. For the reasons given above I conclude the proposed development is consistent with the development plan. The appeal is allowed. C J Leigh INSPECTOR