Single storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 25 August 2026 by Philip Willmer BSc Dip Arch RIBA an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 21 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6012045 13 Oakley Lodge, High Street, Lindfield, West Sussex, RH16 2HG. • 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 Sherry against the decision of Mid Sussex District Council. • The application Ref is DM/26/0007. • The development proposed is a single storey rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey rear extension at 13 Oakley Lodge, High Street, Lindfield, West Sussex, RH16 2HG. in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref DM/26/0007, 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, drawings: 200–000-P1, 001-P1, 101-P2 and Location Plan Ref: PP-145562v1. Main Issue 2. I consider the main issue to be the effect of the proposal on the architectural integrity of the host property and thereby whether the development would serve to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Lindfield Conservation Area. Reasons 3. The appeal property 13 Oakley Lodge (No 13) is a two-storey semi-detached dwelling. It is one of three pairs of 19/20 century semi-detached houses. While the houses were clearly designed as identical properties, they have each been significantly altered and extended over time. Appeal Decision 6012045 2 4. The group of dwellings as well as being located in the Lindfield Conservation Area are also situated within the West Sussex County Council Archaeological Notification Area for the Historic Core of Lindfield. 5. The appellant proposes a single storey rear extension. It would be built to the side of the existing kitchen, utility room and shower room single story outshout. The proposed extension, while not projecting further in the rear garden than the existing outshout, would while, maintaining access to the rear garden, be built closer to the side boundary to No 11. It would thereby be marginally wider than the original house. 6. Due to the variety of earlier rear extensions and alterations to the neighbouring dwellings the historical characteristic form of narrow rear outshouts to semi- detached villas/terraced houses is no longer readily apparent here. 7. Given the contemporary design of neighbouring extensions I concur with the Council’s findings that in this context the proposal would be acceptable in principle. However, the Council were concerned that as the proposed extension would project beyond the side elevation of the host property it would not appear as a subservient addition. Further, it concluded that it would also be open to public view from the High Street. 8. The proposed extension would be single storey, and the south-west wall of utility room/cloak room would be set in from both the south-west walls of the host property and the proposed kitchen extension, thereby forming a clear visual link/set back between the flank walls of the house and kitchen extension. Accordingly, I consider that due to this set back and extensions overall three-dimensional form and massing it would appear as a subservient addition in this case. 9. Further, given its overall height, set back from the street and the screening effect of the proposed high fence and gate, required to make the rear garden private, I believe views of the extension from the street between neighbouring properties would be so limited as to not cause harm to the character and appearance of the conservation area. 10. For the above reasons I conclude in respect of the main issue that the proposed extension would not cause harm to the architectural integrity of the host property and would therefore serve to preserve the character and appearance of the Lindfield Conservation Area. The proposal would consequently concur with the aims and objectives of Policies DP26 and DP35 of the Mid Sussex District Plan 2014- 2031 (Adopted March 2018), the Mid Sussex Design Guide Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document SPD (Adopted November 2020), the National Planning Policy Framework and Section 72 of the Listed Building and Conservation Area Act 1990 as they relate to, along with other things, the quality of development, and the preservation or enhancement of the character or appearance of conservation areas. Conditions 11. In addition to the standard time condition, I shall in order to ensure a high-quality development, include a condition about the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the building. Appeal Decision 6012045 3 12. In the interests of certainty, I shall also impose a condition requiring the development to be undertaken in accordance with the approved plans. Conclusions 13. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. Philip Willmer INSPECTOR