Two-storey side and rear extension. Introduction of render to partially replace hung tile cladding at the front elevation

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: 6012194 Dalby, 70 Halsford Park Road, East Grinstead, West Sussex, RH19 1PS. • 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 Ms Amy Loosley against the decision of Mid Sussex District Council. • The application Ref is DM/26/0452. • The development proposed is two-storey side and rear extension. Introduction of render to partially replace hung tile cladding at the front elevation. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. I consider there are two main issues in this case: • The effect of the proposed development on the architectural integrity of the host property and thereby the character and appearance of the street scene, and; • whether the proposed two-storey rear extension would result in an unacceptable loss of light and outlook to 72 Halsford Park Road. Reasons Character and appearance: 3. Dalby, 70 Halsford Park Road is a two-storey, detached dwelling, set back from the road and located on the west side of street. It is one of a small enclave of detached dwellings on this side of the road. 4. The properties in this group are generally positioned on their plots so as to be set in from their side boundaries with only single storey garages being built up to the boundary on one side. This has given them an overall generous spacious appearance which is a particular character of this group. Further, the surrounding dwellings, which generally comprises two-storey, semi-detached houses, again due to their layout, serve to reinforce the spacious character of the street as a whole. 5. The appellant proposes, following the removal of a single storey lean-to style garage and workshop to the north side, and single storey flat roof addition to the rear, a two-storey side and rear extension. In addition, the design proposes replacing the existing tile hanging to the gable facing the street with render. Appeal Decision 6012194 2 6. Although modest in scale the removal of the rather unattractive utilitarian garage/workshop is the be welcomed. The overall composition of the house as extended would, apart from the unfortunate area of flat roof over the walk-in closet, be appropriate in scale and well mannered. The flat roof, which would be visible from the street, would be in direct contrast to the overall vernacular design of the house as extended and would therefore appear incongruous. 7. I note the Council’s concern in respect of the removal of tile hanging to the front gable and its replacement with white render. Nevertheless, given the other examples of render in the street I consider it to be one of the overall palate of materials found locally, and therefore acceptable in principle. Further, in this case it would serve to visually break up the overall rather bland mass of tile hanging to street elevation of the house and would therefore be an appropriate design detail. 8. Further, the introduction of a hip over the new en-suite shower room/closet would to some extent reduce the visual mass of the side extension when viewed from the street. 9. Nevertheless, the front elevation of the side extension would run through flush with the existing front façade of the house, it would thereby result in the house as extended appearing wider than the other houses in this enclave. In addition, as the house would be extended right up to the boundary with No 68 the proposed extension would severely diminish the visually spacious quality of this property and the group of houses of which it is part. 10. For the foregoing reasons I consider that the proposed extension would cause significant harm to the architectural integrity of the host property and thereby the character and appearance of the street scene. To allow it would therefore be contrary to the aims and objectives of Policy DP26 of the Mid Sussex District Plan 2014-2031 (Adopted March 2018) (LP), Principles DG49 and DG50 of the Mid Sussex Design Guide Design Guide Supplementary Planning document SPD (Adopted November 2020) (SPD), Policy EG3 of the East Grinstead Neighbourhood Plan November 2016 (NP), and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) as they relate to, amongst other things, the quality of development, and the need to protect the character and appearance of the area. Living conditions 11. The Council were concerned when determining the planning application that the proposed rear extension would result in an unacceptable loss of light and outlook to the kitchen of No 72 served by the ground floor window at the western end of the north wall of the property. The Council identified that in respect of this window the proposed two-storey extension would fail the 25 degree test set out in the BRE good practice guide. 12. No 72 is a detached chalet bungalow the rear wall of which would project beyond the rear wall of Dalby as extended. The separation distance between the proposed two-story rear extension to Dalby and the flank wall of No 72 would be about 4.5 metres or so. The kitchen window identified by the Council faces north. Furthermore, from the evidence before me I note that the kitchen directly adjoins the conservatory at the rear of No 72 and therefore takes light from it and gives views of the rear garden beyond. Appeal Decision 6012194 3 13. Given all of these considerations I am not persuaded on balance that the proposed extension, while failing the BRE 25 degree test, would in this case result in such an unacceptable loss of light and outlook to the users of the kitchen at No 72 as to cause harm to their living conditions. The proposed development would therefore accord with the objectives of LP Policy DP26, NP Policy EG3, the SPD and the Framework as they seek to protect residential living conditions. Other Matters 14. I note that there were no objections to the development in terms highways, environmental health or ecology, and that the Town Council supported the proposal. However, the absence of harm is a neutral factor in my considerations. 15. Further, I appreciate that the appellant not only engaged constructively with the local planning authority and made genuine and material design revisions to try and address pre-application issues raised by the local planning authority. In the light of this the appellant has raised concerns that the Delegated Report failed engage adequately with the revisions made by the appellant in the light of those negotiations. This is however not relevant to my consideration of the planning merits of this appeal which I have considered on the planning merits of the proposal before me. 16. Furthermore, whilst I am sympathetic to the fact that the appeal proposal is a redesign, taking into account issues raised during earlier considerations with the Council, I can only assess the current proposal on the basis of the design before me. 17. My attention has been drawn to a number of side and rear extensions for which planning permission has been granted elsewhere in Halsford Park Road. Whatever the background to those cases, their existence is not an appropriate justification for permitting the development here which I have considered on the basis of its particular design and planning merits. Conclusions 18. For the reasons set out above I have concluded that the proposed development would not adversely affect the living conditions of the occupiers of No 72 in terms of loss of light to or outlook from their kitchen. However, I consider that this factor is outweighed by the unacceptable harm that would ensue to the architectural integrity of the host property and thereby the character and appearance of the street scene. To my mind these are compelling objections. I have considered all the other matters raised, but none change my overall conclusion, reached on the planning merits of the proposal, that the appeal should be dismissed. Philip Willmer INSPECTOR