Expanded bungalow at Appleton, Dormans Park, East Grinstead

What was proposed

The application sought an additional storey, loft accommodation, dormers, extensions, roof lights, a porch, hard standing and a secondary access.

“Application: 2026/755 Location: Appleton, Hillcrest, Dormans Park, East Grinstead, Surrey, RH19 2LX Proposal: Demolition of detached garage. Erection of additional storey and conversion of loft into habitable accommodation with three rear roof dormer windows. Erection of front porch and bay windows. Erection of single storey side extensions. Installation of three front roof lights.”

Officer report

Consultation and objections

The parish council objected to the disproportionate scale, while third parties raised concerns about overbearing effects, privacy, design, scale, safety and missing detail.

“Overbearing impact • Loss of privacy, overlooking/overshadowing and loss of light • Design Concerns/misleading number of storeys • Scale and massing of the proposed dwelling • Health and Safety • Topography/street scene • Lack of detail in application…”

Officer report

Who spoke

An objector spoke against the application, and an agent spoke in support on behalf of the applicant.

Members’ concerns

A councillor proposed refusal because of harm to character, neighbouring amenity and the Green Belt, including insufficient very special circumstances.

“The proposal, due to the siting and proximity of the proposed development to neighbouring properties, would result in in overlooking, overshadowing, and overbearing effects, along with a loss of privacy to neighbouring residential properties which would adversely impact on the amenities of the occupiers, thereby contrary to Policy CSP18 of the Tandridge District Core Strategy (2008) and Policy DP7 of the Tandridge Local Plan Part 2: Detailed Policies (2014).”

“The proposed development would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt for which there are insufficient very special circumstances to overcome the harm of inappropriateness and the other harm identified as the proposal would constitute a disproportionate increase in the size of the dwelling compared to the original building and because the development would not be in a sustainable location.”

Minutes

The vote

Members voted to approve the refusal motions proposed and seconded by councillors.

“The motions were proposed by Councillor Chris Farr and seconded by Councillor Sherry.”

“Upon being put to the vote the motions for refusal were approved.”

Minutes