Appeal 3374817

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for extension to first floor balcony at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application WD/2025/1731/F and subject to the following

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

The materials to be used in the construction of the balustrade hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing balustrade.

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans: 243265 04 [name] existing sections, site and location plans 243265 B1 proposed balcony extension part first floor plan 243265 B2 proposed balcony extension first floor plan 243265 B3 proposed balcony extension elevations

Permission has recently been granted under WD/2025/0434/F for the conversion of the existing carport to habitable accommodation. At the time of my visit works were underway to convert the carport.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the building and wider area.

Although larger than the existing balcony, the proposal would have a similar appearance to it in terms of it being at first floor level and with a similarly designed glass balustrade. I consider it would complement the design of the existing building.

The property lies on the edge of Uckfield on a rural road surrounded by woodland. The dwelling itself is set back in a former quarry and is surrounded by rock walls higher than the balcony. A wall and evergreen hedge along the frontage largely screen views of the building and proposed balcony from the road. While limited views of it would be gained through the entrance when the gates are open, I do not consider it would appear discordant or out of place in the existing domestic setting.

The balcony would be used for normal domestic activities in association with the dwelling. Those activities would be similar to those already carried out on the existing balcony and while the area would be larger, it would still relate to the use and enjoyment of the existing dwelling and would therefore be unlikely to be any more intense. For the reasons given above, the use of the balcony would, in any case, not be readily visible from a public vantage point.

I conclude that there would be no harmful impact on the character or appearance of the building or the wider area, and consequently no conflict with Policy WCS14 of the Wealden Core Strategy Local Plan 2013 or saved Policies EN27 and DC19 of the Wealden Local Plan 1998, which seek good design in new development.

The Councill’s arborist confirms that there would be no harm, directly or indirectly, to the surrounding ancient woodland. So far as wildlife is concerned, the activities associated with the use of the balcony would be no different to the normal domestic activities that would be expected with the use of the existing dwelling, either through the use of the existing balcony or more generally in its garden.

In addition to the standard time limit, I have imposed a condition requiring the balcony to be constructed in accordance with the approved plans in the interests of certainty. I have imposed a condition requiring it to match the existing balcony in the interests of good design.

I have not imposed a condition restricting external lighting on the balcony as I do not consider it to be necessary or reasonable. The property is already in domestic use, and I am not aware of any restrictions on occupiers being able to install external lighting on the existing balcony or elsewhere on the property. To restrict lighting on the extended part of the balcony would therefore have no appreciable benefit.

I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.