Garage Conversion

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 28 July 2026 by J Davis BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 6 August 2026 Appeal Ref: 6010516 36 Trubwick Avenue, Haywards Heath, RH16 4UR • 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 & Mrs Humphry against the decision of Mid Sussex District Council. • The application Ref is DM/26/0589. • The development proposed is Garage Conversion. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a Garage Conversion at 36 Trubwick Avenue, Haywards Heath, RH16 4UR in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 6010516, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Location Plan; Site Plan; Existing and Proposed Planning Drawing. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on parking provision in the area and on highway safety. Reasons 3. The proposal is for a garage conversion. The existing garage would be subdivided with the front section retained for storage, with the remainder converted to living space. External alterations would be minimal, as the garage door on the front elevation would be retained and only two small roof lights provided on the rear elevation. 4. I am advised that the appeal property is a four-bedroom dwelling and that the West Sussex County Council Parking Standards Guidance (2020) (PSG) advises that in this location, 2.2 parking spaces would be expected to be provided. 5. In addition to the existing garage, the dwelling also benefits from a driveway space. The proposed garage conversion would result in the loss of the garage space, but the driveway space immediately to the front of it would be retained, with sufficient space for 1no. car to be parked. Appeal Decision 6010516 2 6. The proposal would therefore result in a shortfall in parking provision when assessed against the current parking standards guidance. The Council also confirm in their officer report that a planning condition on the original planning permission for the development states that the garage space shall not be used other than for the parking of vehicles in connection with the development. 7. However, there are other relevant considerations in this case. The appellant advises that having lived at the dwelling for almost 10 years, the garage has not during that time been used for parking as it is too narrow to serve as a parking space. The appellant therefore maintains that the appeal proposal would have no additional effect on the availability of on-street parking as this is already relied upon in respect of their second car. 8. The existing garage is reached by a narrow driveway between the flank wall of the appeal property and the rear wall of the neighbouring dwelling to the south-east. The appellant highlights that the internal dimension of the garage is around 2.65 metres which makes entering and exiting a parked car extremely difficult and virtually impossible in relation to larger vehicles. I also observed that the garage door is narrow, which appears to make access difficult and would likely further discourage its use for parking. 9. I acknowledge that the occupiers of the dwelling would change over time, however having regard to the limited width of the garage I consider that its use for the parking of vehicles would be unlikely, even in connection with the smallest of cars. I also note that the current parking standards guidance referred to above, states that if garages are to be provided in connection with development they should be at least 6m x 3m internally. It also confirms that if garages meet this requirement, they will be regarded as an allocated parking space of 0.5 and calculations of parking demand will take this into account. This highlights that the width of the garage falls considerably short of that required within the current guidance and that even if it was compliant, the County Council would only count it as 0.5 of a space. 10. In addition to the above considerations, the appeal property is located close to the junction of Trubwick Avenue and Renfields where there are several on-street parking bays. Whilst only a snapshot in time, at my site visit I observed that there was no evidence of widespread displaced parking in the local area. I am also mindful of the 20 mph speed limit and the traffic calming measures that exist. Accordingly, vehicle speeds in and around the area would be likely to be low and therefore any displaced parking that might take place would be unlikely to result in any severe impact on highway safety or be of such a scale that it would detract from the local environment or the enjoyment of pedestrians and cyclists. 11. I acknowledge that no substantive evidence has been provided in the form of a parking capacity survey or similar. However, owing to my observations regarding the particular circumstances of the site and surroundings, I conclude that the proposed development would not have a significant harmful effect on parking provision in the area or on highway safety. 12. I therefore find that the proposed development would not conflict with Policies DP21 and DP26 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan 2014-2031 (2018), Policies E9 and H9 of the Haywards Heath Town Council Neighbourhood Plan (2016) or the National Planning Policy Framework 2024. Together and amongst other matters, these policies require development to provide adequate, well integrated parking Appeal Decision 6010516 3 that does not dominate the street environment and protects the safety of road users and pedestrians. Conditions 13. In addition to the standard implementation condition, the approved plans condition is imposed for certainty. Conclusion 14. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. J Davis INSPECTOR