Demolition of existing conservatory. Build of single storey rear extension to replace

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 20 September 2021 by Robert Parker BSc (Hons) Dip TP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 22 October 2021 Appeal Ref: APP/L3625/D/21/3268315 1 The Old Rectory, Ironsbottom, Sidlow, Surrey RH2 8PP • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr and Mrs Paul and Louise Brotzel against the decision of Reigate & Banstead Borough Council. • The application Ref 19/02489/HHOLD, dated 10 December 2019, was refused by notice dated 30 December 2020. • The development proposed is demolition of existing conservatory. Build of single storey rear extension to replace. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue to consider is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling, having particular regard to its status as a locally listed building. Reasons 3. The appeal property dates from the 18th century and comprises part of a former rectory. The building was subdivided in the 1970s. The proposed extension would replace a conservatory on the rear of the building. The existing structure is in poor condition and its octagonal plan form and modern appearance bear little relationship to the vernacular building to which it has been attached. In my opinion, there would be clear benefits in replacing the conservatory with a more appropriate extension. 4. The proposed extension would have a rectangular footprint with a flat roof and heavily glazed elevations. The majority of the structure would sit behind a later one and a half storey wing of the dwelling but it would overlap slightly with an older part of the building. The flat roof would butt into the roof slope of the existing wing, well above the eaves line. Overall, the extension would appear excessively tall and bulky, not helped by its deep fascia. Its design would be clumsy and its juxtaposition with the host building awkward. Although contrasting architectural styles can work in situations such as this, the proposal would not achieve a harmonious relationship between old and new. 5. The property is locally listed. Policy NHE9 of the Reigate and Banstead Local Plan Development Management Plan (2019) requires new development to Appeal Decision APP/L3625/D/21/3268315 2 protect, preserve, and wherever possible enhance, the Borough’s designated and non-designated heritage assets, including settings of locally listed buildings. Policy DES1 places a requirement on all development to achieve high quality design that makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of its surroundings. The proposal would fail to respect the character and appearance of the locally listed host building and it would therefore conflict with these policies. 6. I have taken account of the fact that the existing conservatory is in need of replacement and the desire of the appellants to improve the living environment within their home. However, it seems to me that both benefits could be achieved with a more suitable design. As such, these factors do not outweigh the harm that would arise from the proposal and do not justify a decision otherwise than in accordance with the development plan. Conclusion 7. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Robert Parker INSPECTOR