East Grinstead tenth flat refused after privacy appeal

An East Grinstead tenth flat proposal has failed on appeal after an Inspector found that converting a ground-floor storage area into another home would produce unacceptable privacy and outlook, while leaving cycle parking, refuse storage and financial mitigation unresolved. The ruling was issued on 9th October 2026.

The two-bedroom flat at the former Tower Car Sales site in East Grinstead would have brought an already approved nine-flat building up to ten homes. The conversion had in fact been carried out when Inspector A Knight visited in September, but its completion did not make the residential accommodation acceptable in planning terms.

Of particular importance to developers are the Inspector’s conclusions about overlooking from an undercroft car park, the inability to secure essential payments by condition, and the operation of England’s new National Planning Policy Framework. The decision, reference 6010262, provides a detailed account of all three issues.

East Grinstead tenth flat: the development history

Weald Properties Limited sought permission under Mid Sussex application DM/26/0432 for the internal reconfiguration of a newly constructed residential building at Tower Close, East Grinstead. Earlier permission DM/21/3534 had authorised demolition of a former car sales office and workshop and construction of a block of nine flats. A subsequent permission, DM/22/0921, altered aspects of the footprint.

The approved ground floor provided a flat at the southern end, indoor facilities for cycles and refuse, and an undercroft for eight cars behind. The new application instead placed a two-bedroom flat in some of the space intended for communal storage and sought to provide alternative facilities elsewhere.

The distinction is significant. The issue was not whether the wider site could accommodate flats in principle. The approved development already did. The appeal concerned whether an additional home, squeezed into servicing space, could independently satisfy living standards and the obligations generated by the increased residential occupation.

Although the applicant said the work was retrospective, the Inspector removed that procedural label from the formal description because it is not itself an act of development. What mattered was the physical layout and use being judged at appeal.

Privacy and outlook failed in the converted unit

Windows on both sides of the additional flat were central to the refusal. The western elevation looked into an enclosed undercroft car park; the eastern side faced a narrow pedestrian route bounded by a high solid fence. The living area’s eastern glass was obscured. The Inspector found that these relationships provided very limited outlook.

More seriously, people using the undercroft could look directly into the living room and one bedroom, especially while passing the windows on their way to the central stairwell. The walkway on the other side also gave close views into a bedroom and was a regular access route serving residents.

Putting blinds down could increase privacy but would further reduce the already restricted view. A design response that exchanges one serious defect for another is not a satisfactory resolution. The Inspector considered the overall relationship oppressive for occupiers, who would have frequent activity immediately outside the windows.

The flat offered approximately 58 square metres, against the relevant nationally described space standard of 61 square metres. The three-square-metre shortfall was not treated as a standalone arithmetical issue. Instead it contributed to the overall cramped and enclosed living conditions.

These findings were considered against Mid Sussex District Plan policies DP26 and DP27. The Inspector did not accept that adding a dwelling within an existing building automatically outweighed the need for privacy, adequate outlook and appropriate internal accommodation.

A lost cycle store is not easily replaced

The original building included a defined internal cycle and refuse storage area. The change of use took away part of that space. The appellant acknowledged a requirement for one secure cycle space per flat under the applicable local standards and accepted that the revised proposal fell short, but offered to agree alternatives.

The Inspector considered the alternatives too uncertain. Narrow strips of external land around the building would require secure enclosures and could themselves involve operational development with planning consequences. The room proposed as a cycle store did not clearly offer enough capacity.

Cycle racks had also been installed in the undercroft, but no tracking evidence demonstrated that residents could use them safely while cars manoeuvred. This was not a case in which the Inspector felt able to assume the details could simply be sorted out through a condition after granting permission.

Refuse storage raised similar problems. The applicant said nine bins had proved workable, but the Inspector saw considerably more than nine during the visit. Some were outside on the access ramp, while others were packed so closely inside that not all could be readily reached.

Actual refuse collection appearing to function did not establish that storage provision was appropriate. For a block of flats, the design of internal service areas remains part of the scheme and cannot be safely traded away without a credible, evidenced replacement.

Unsecured Ashdown Forest obligations proved fatal

The building lies within the seven-kilometre zone of influence around Ashdown Forest Special Protection Area. The decision identifies potential impacts associated with recreational pressure on protected birds and with atmospheric pollution from additional traffic.

Under local policy DP17, mitigation involves both Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace, known as SANG, and Strategic Access Management and Monitoring, known as SAMM. For this one additional unit the Inspector recorded anticipated contributions of approximately £5,253 for SANG and £1,170 for SAMM, as well as about £7,869 for infrastructure. These are figures specific to the appeal and should not be recycled as a general charging schedule.

The appellant said it was willing to enter into the necessary planning obligation, but no executed agreement accompanied the appeal. The Inspector noted the procedural guidance that an executed and certified obligation should be submitted when the appeal is made.

A negatively worded condition requiring payment was not accepted as a substitute. The Inspector specifically relied on national policy DM6, which says that planning conditions should not be used to secure money payments. Nor was there a convincing explanation why a unilateral undertaking could not have been supplied.

That left the Inspector unable to conclude that the essential payments would be made or to rule out adverse effects on the protected habitat site. The proposal therefore conflicted with the Habitats Regulations and national policy N6. Anyone seeking to resolve a similar issue should distinguish a promise to sign from an executed planning obligation.

Why housing need did not carry the appeal

Mid Sussex Council accepted that it lacked a five-year housing land supply. Under the August 2026 Framework, new housing in settlements enjoys substantial policy support, including national policy L2 on creating homes through additions within existing plots.

However, the Inspector emphasised that the support is conditional on maintaining acceptable living conditions, including privacy. Here the negative effect was pronounced rather than marginal. The scheme did not meet the very safeguard that policy L2 retained.

In addition to the lack of privacy, the unresolved Ashdown Forest mitigation brought national policy N6 into play. The Inspector found that the limited benefit of a single extra flat was substantially outweighed by those adverse effects when assessed against the national decision-making policies.

For applicants, this illustrates the difference between proving that a location is appropriate for housing and proving that a specific additional dwelling is acceptable. The wider nine-flat scheme had permission. That history did not entitle the developer to turn a storage room into a further flat regardless of consequential design and legal problems.

Separate costs application also refused

The appellant also sought a partial award of appeal costs, alleging that Mid Sussex District Council had failed to explore amendments to cycle and refuse provision and had not pursued a planning obligation before refusing permission. In a separate decision dated 9th October 2026, Inspector Knight rejected the application. The council was not obliged to negotiate facilities that should have been addressed in the original scheme, and an executed agreement could not have overcome the unacceptable living conditions.

The Inspector found no unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted appeal expense. Planning Geek’s guide to awards of costs explains why this is a separate test from the merits of a refused application. Both the appeal and related costs decision are relevant to the outcome.

Lessons for additional-flat and infill applications

Before converting a common facility into residential accommodation, a development team should check the knock-on effects across the entire building. Removing cycle or waste space may create an under-provision that cannot practically be made good elsewhere within the red line.

It is equally important to draw the actual views into and out of the proposed windows, including the movement of people through car parks, circulation routes and neighbouring communal areas. Minimum floor-space compliance alone would not rescue a home with virtually no privacy, and a floor-space deficit can make an already poor arrangement worse.

Where European site mitigation or infrastructure payments are necessary, a completed and enforceable mechanism should be in place in good time, not left to be negotiated after an appeal is submitted. The Planning Inspectorate record identifies the appeal reference and decision while the full reasons explain the evidence the Inspector found wanting.

The latest decision does not rule out all additional flats within completed buildings. It demonstrates that a modest increase in housing numbers must still meet the same statutory and policy tests as larger developments. For this particular scheme, several independent shortcomings were enough to defeat the appeal.