Appeal 3368929

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for erection of single storey front extension at [site address] , Forestfield, Furnace Green, Crawley, [postcode] , in accordance with the terms of the application [name]/2025/0085/FUL and the plan submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plan: J1727 01 [name].

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those of the existing building.

I consider that the main issues in this case are its effect on the character and appearance of the area and on the living conditions of neighbouring residents.

[site address] is a two storey semi-detached house located in an established residential area. It has an original single storey forward projection to the front, more or less centrally placed in the front elevation, leaving an open space on either side forming two front yards. It is part of a development within the Forestfield and Shrublands Conservation Area, which is characterised by low profile flat roofed clusters of houses with distinctive fenestration and white detailing. There is a strong sense of enclosure arising from the high, solid, dark red brick walls which present to the public domain, while the front entrances are typically tucked away along narrow alleyways with small, often paved front yards. The significance of the conservation area lies to a large extent in the layout and appearance of the groups of houses, and the particular architectural and design features which were characteristic of the times in which they were constructed.

The relevant policies in this case include CL2, DD1, HA1 and HA2 of the Crawley Borough Local Plan 2023 to 2040 (the local plan), which relate, among other things, to urban design, efficient use of land while maintaining a good standard of amenity for occupants and respect for heritage assets including conservation areas. The Council’s Supplementary Planning Document [name] (the SPD) contains detailed guidance for all development, including residential extensions and development within conservation areas.

There is a statutory duty under Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas. The National Planning Policy Framework (2021) (the Framework) states that in the consideration of development proposals, great weight should be given to the conservation of heritage assets in accordance with the significance of the asset, and any harm should require clear and convincing justification.

The proposed single storey front extension would fill in part of the front space between the existing, original forward projection of the house and the common boundary wall with No. 20. The existing forward projection is a common feature in the conservation area and contributes to the overall rhythm of the pattern of development throughout the area.

I saw during my visit that although most of the front areas of the houses seem to be unaltered from the original layout, there are several instances where alterations and extensions have been carried out with varying degrees of success.

I understand that the proposal is a reduction in depth compared to a previous scheme which was refused planning permission. I consider that this proposal would be acceptable, since the front wall would be set back from the front boundary to allow for some planting, and it would have a flat roof at the same height as the existing projection. It would be located in the yard area to the south of the projection and be of a modest size. Its overall design would respect the character of the house itself and the wider area.

It would provide additional living accommodation within the property, replacing an outside area which appears to be of little functional value as private amenity space. No. 19 is one of a pair of semi-detached houses, which are of a different orientation to the immediate neighbours, and I consider that the proposal would not affect the rhythm of single storey front projections present in other parts of the area as a whole.

I conclude that the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the house itself or the significance of the wider conservation area and that, in this respect, it is consistent with local plan policies CL2, DD1, HA1 and HA2 and the SPD.

The proposal would result in an increase in height of the wall on the boundary with No. 20, which would lead to some increased sense of enclosure apparent from the adjacent window in the latter. However, I understand that this is not the only window providing light to the room. No. 20 lies to the south of No. 19, and I consider that the amount of sun and daylight reaching the window would not be significantly compromised compared with the existing situation. It would not amount to sufficient grounds to warrant dismissing this appeal.

I conclude that the proposal would not harm the living conditions of the occupants of the neighbouring property and that, in this respect, it is consistent with local plan policy DD1.

For the reasons given above, the appeal is allowed.

I have considered the conditions put forward by the Council, having regard to the tests set out in the Framework. A condition detailing the plans is necessary to ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans and for the avoidance of doubt. A condition relating to the materials is necessary in order to ensure the satisfactory appearance of the development.