For a single storey front extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 22 September 2026 by Nicola Davies BA DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date:30 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6014199 66 Scott Road, Tilgate, Crawley, West Sussex RH10 5DD • 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 Moghyss Javaid against the decision of Crawley Borough Council . • The application Ref is CR/2026/0081/FUL. • The development proposed is for a single storey front extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey front extension at 66 Scott Road, Tilgate, Crawley, West Sussex RH10 5DD in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref CR/2026/0081/FUL, subject to the following condition: - 1) The development hereby permitted shall be retained in accordance with the approved plans: Location Plan; 2523 EZ01; 2523 EZ02 and 2523 EZ03. 2) Within three months of the date of this decision, a rainwater storage facility (water butt or similar) with a minimum net capacity of 0.3m³ (300 litres) shall be installed and connected to the roof drainage serving the single storey front extension. The rainwater storage facility shall thereafter be retained for the lifetime of the development. Preliminary Matters 2. A revised version of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) has been published since the planning application was determined by the Council. I have had regard to the revised Framework in reaching my decision. 3. I have taken the description of proposed development from the Council’s decision notice as this clearly and succinctly describes the act of development only. 4. The planning application form indicates that the development has already taken place and I was able to view the front extension at the time of my visit. Main Issue 5. The main issue raised by this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on character and appearance of the host dwelling and the street scene. Appeal Decision 6014199 2 Reasons 6. The appellant has directed me to a previous planning permission (REF: CR/2009/0051/FUL) that granted front, side and rear single-storey extensions at the property. The Council officers report confirms that the side and rear elements of that planning permission were built out, however the front extension has not. The officer report further comments that the proposal that is now before me differs to that of the 2009 front extension, however it is not explained why. I saw side and rear additions in place at my visit. It would appear to me that as the 2009 planning permission has been implemented it remains extant that the front extension could be erected at the site. This is a relevant consideration. 7. The appellant has provided measurements and other details to illustrate the comparisons between the appealed development and that of the 2009 granted scheme. The projection beyond the frontage for both schemes is 1.5m and the heights are almost the same. However, the current frontage is wider having a width of 3.9m for the northern element, as opposed to 3.3m of the previous scheme, and 2.0m for the southern element. Nonetheless, the southern element is said to reflect the previous porch footprint. 8. The appellant comments that the approved details of the 2009 permission can be viewed on the Council’s website but I have not been provided with the approved plans or documents relating to that case. Nonetheless, it appears to me that an extended frontage of similar resulting size and form could have taken place as an alternative to what has been erected at the site, although the one that has been erected is marginally wider at its northern part. 9. I acknowledge the local planning authority’s concern in regard of the differing forward projections from the frontage and differing overall roof heights and pitches of the development that is before me. However, the extensions, although being different, do not appear so overtly visually awkward such that detracts from the appearance of the host property. 10. The front addition extends across more than one third of the width of the original dwelling and this would be contrary to the recently adopted guidance set out in the Householder Development Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) 2026. Notwithstanding this, on the evidence that is before me a development of similar size and nature could have been erected at the frontage of this property despite the local planning authority’s concerns relating to the width, scale, massing and prominent siting of the extension. Whilst that development would have been considered against a different development plan context, it remains a consideration pertaining to this case. 11. I acknowledge that the recently adopted SPD recognises that in streets characterised by original repeated features, including flat-roofed porches, such uniform features should be retained. However, I am mindful that the 2009 permission would alter the frontage appearance of the dwelling that would interrupt the uniformity of the Scott Road street scene and this is a relevant consideration. 12. Consequently, having regard to the planning history and the relatively modest change to the frontage of the dwelling and the appearance of the development being acceptable, I do not find visual harm arises from this development. Appeal Decision 6014199 3 13. For these reasons, I conclude that the development does not harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the street scene. As such, the development would comply with Policies DD1 and CL2 of the Crawley Borough Local Plan. These policies seek, amongst other matters, development to complement the existing setting and character of the area. This aligns with the revised Framework’s objective to achieve well-designed places. Conditions 14. I have considered what planning conditions would be necessary in light of Policy DM6 of the revised Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance. In the interests of certainty, it is appropriate that there is a condition requiring the development to be retained in accordance with the approved plans. The site is within Flood Zone 2 and is at medium risk of fluvial flooding. To safeguard occupants and prevent flooding elsewhere a rainwater storage facility condition is necessary and follows the recommendations of the Council’s Flooding and Drainage Officer. Conclusion 15. Having regard to the above the appeal should be allowed. Nicola Davies INSPECTOR