Loft conversion and extensions at Rosslyn, 5 Trundle Mead, Horsham

What was proposed

The application proposed loft living space, side and rear extensions, a raised re-pitched roof, and front and rear dormers.

“The application seeks planning permission to re-model the existing detached bungalow on the site by extending it to the rear by 1.85m, replacing the attached side garage with a larger attached garage with half-hipped roof above, and to increase the roof by raising its height by 1m and including half-hips in place of the current hips. Two dormer windows are proposed each to the front and rear roof planes.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is a detached bungalow in Horsham, among mainly single-storey homes and several extended properties.

“The application site is a single storey detached bungalow, which lies to the southern side of Trundle Mead within the built up area of Horsham. The property is completed in red/brown brick and tile with white UPVC windows. The surrounding properties are predominantly single-storey dwellings, with some two-storey houses situated further west of the application site. Trundle Mead features a number of dwellings that have been extended, with various…”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

An earlier application for a two-storey conversion, porch and extensions was refused, and an appeal was submitted.

“DC/25/0394 Conversion of bungalow into a 2 storey house with addition of 2 no roof lights to rear elevation. Erection of two-storey front porch. Erection of a single storey rear extension and a single storey side garage extension. Application Refused on 12.05.2025. Appeal submitted 06.08.2025”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the design would fit the area and would not harm neighbouring privacy, outlook, daylight or the street scene.

“The existing street scene includes examples of front, side and rear dormer windows. The proposed front and rear pitched roof dormers, along with associated rooflights, are considered to be appropriately sited and designed in relation to both the host dwelling and the wider street scene. The dormers would be clearly subservient additions and are of a form and scale that respects the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and surrounding area.”

“Whilst it is acknowledged that the proposed side extension would be visible from a public vantage point and would be sited 1.5m to the boundary of the site, it is not considered to result in any harmful loss of openness between the application site and neighbouring property. In the context of the existing built form and site layout, the extension would be viewed as a coherent and sympathetic addition.”

Officer report

What people said

Objectors raised concerns about scale, bulk, character, bungalow loss, overlooking, light, noise, boundaries and neighbouring amenity.

“The proposed structure will be within 1 metre of the existing boundary, significantly impacting light and views from the affected side of the property • No details have been provided regarding the use of the proposed workshop, operating hours or potential noise levels • The proposed building is considered visually intrusive and unsightly, detracting from the character and appearance of the surrounding area.”

“Approval of this application may set a precedent for similar developments risking the loss of the established character of the street and the loss of bungalow stock. • The proposal contributes to the ongoing reduction of bungalow stock, which affects housing diversity and availability in the area. • The application is opposed due to its adverse impact on the local environment and neighbouring properties.”

Officer report

Who spoke

One member of the public spoke in support, while the neighbourhood council spoke against the proposal.

Members’ discussion

Members noted the planning history and asked for clarification about the increase in ridge height.

“Members noted the planning history of the application.”

“Members requested clarification regarding the ridge height rise in this development.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee approved the application in accordance with the officer recommendation.

“That DC/25/1187 be approved in accordance with officer recommendation.”

Minutes

Conditions of approval

Approval included approved plans, a three-year start period, specified materials and obscure, partly fixed glazing to the eastern first-floor window.

“Regulatory Condition: The materials to be used in the development hereby permitted shall strictly accord with those indicated on the approved proposed ground floor, elevation & cross sections plan drawing numbered PA.1682025/02 received 21.07.2025.”

“Pre-Occupation Condition: No part of the development hereby permitted shall be occupied until the window at first floor level on the side (east) elevation on Plan PA.1682025/02 has been fitted with obscured glazing. No part of that window that is less than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which it is installed shall be capable of being opened. Once installed the obscured glazing and non-openable parts of those windows shall be retained permanently thereafter.”

Officer report