Appeal 3303753

The appeal is dismissed.

I consider the main issues to be a) the effect of the proposal on the architectural integrity of the host property and thereby the streetscene, and; b) the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of adjoining residential neighbours, in terms of its potential to have an enclosing and oppressive impact leading to a loss of light and outlook.

The appeal property [site address] is a semi-detached two-storey dwelling with roof space accommodation. Park Avenue is a cul-de-sac, characterised by a mix of semi-detached and detached two-storey dwellings and chalets, built to an eclectic mix of designs and external materials.

The appellants propose ground and first floor additions to the rear of the property. The Council raise no objection to the single storey addition. From what I have seen and read I would not reach a contrary view.

It is proposed that the two-storey rear addition would be built off the rear corner of the original dwelling and linked to the first floor accommodation over the garage, to the front of the dwelling, by a flat roof corridor. The roof over the new first floor bedroom would be of a pitched hipped design.

Due to the position of the proposed first floor addition, its relationship to the host property and flat roof link it would appear as an awkward, contrived addition to the host property. For these reasons it would cause harm to the architectural integrity of the host property.

The neighbouring property number [address] is a chalet bungalow. Accordingly, the proposed first floor addition would be open, albeit limited to views from the street. I consider that because of the awkward positioning of the addition and its three-dimensional form it would appear as an incongruous addition within the street scene.

I therefore conclude in respect of the first main issue that the proposed first floor addition would fail to comply with the objectives of Policy DP26 of the Mid Sussex District Plan (LP), Policy 9 of the Hassocks Neighbourhood Plan (NP), Principles DG49 and DG51 of the mid [name] and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) as they relate, along with other things, to the quality of design and the need for new development to contribute positively to the private and public realm.

The flank wall of the chalet bungalow, number [address] is set some 2.2 metres from the appeal property. There are two ground floor windows facing the appeal site, one being a shallow bay serving a habitable room.

Given the position of the flank wall to the side of the appeal property, the two ground floor windows and the relationship of the extension to the flank of number 3, I consider that as well as having an enclosing and somewhat oppressive impact on number 3 the proposed extension would cause an unacceptable loss of light and outlook.

For the reasons set out above I conclude in respect of the second main issue that the proposed addition would cause significant harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of number [address]. The proposal would therefore fail to comply with LP Policy DP26 and NP Policy 9, SPD and the Framework as they seek to protect residential living conditions.

I have noted the revised design submitted by the appellants at appeal. However, this proposal is a significant departure from the scheme design at appeal. It would therefore be for the Council to determine any application for the revised scheme in the first instance. I shall therefore not consider this amended proposal further.

The appellants have drawn to my attention concerns that the Council were not prepared to advise on their amended proposal. This is however not relevant to my consideration of the planning merits of this appeal.

In reaching my conclusions on this matter I have noted that both the neighbour at number [address] and Hassocks Parish Council supported the original planning application. However, given my conclusion on both of the main issues I have given limited weight to this consideration.

For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.