Addition of bedroom, ensuite, and dressing room within new roof space

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 3 June 2026 by Scott Wilson LL.B. MSc MRTPI Decision by A M Nilsson BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 02 July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6007710 119 Holly Lane East, Banstead, Surrey SM7 2BE • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Luke Eggar against the decision of Reigate and Banstead Borough Council. • The application Ref is 25/02135/HHOLD. • The development proposed is the addition of bedroom, ensuite, and dressing room within new roof space. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal Procedure 2. The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the appeal building and the wider area. Reasons for the Recommendation 4. The appeal property comprises a two-storey, extensively extended detached dwelling, constructed in a mock Tudor style, and finished in a combination of painted render and decorative timber framing. The front elevation is characterised by a prominent, forward-projecting gable with a pitched roof, positioned approximately centrally within the building, whilst the remaining roof elements are predominantly hipped. 5. The appeal dwelling forms part of a cohesive and readily identifiable group of properties that create a distinctive row along Holly Lane East. These buildings share a consistent building line, set back from the highway, and are characterised by a high degree of uniformity in their overall composition. In particular, almost all properties incorporate one prominent forward-projecting element to the principal elevation in the form of a feature gable with a pitched roof, with the remainder of the roof form predominantly hipped. Many of the dwellings appear to have been extended, resulting in the principal feature gable being positioned approximately centrally within each building, creating a broadly symmetrical appearance that reinforces the cohesion of the group. Appeal Decision 6007710 2 6. Externally, the properties within the group are typically finished with brickwork at ground floor level on the front elevation, with the first floor comprising a combination of painted render and mock Tudor timber detailing. Roof coverings are consistent across the group. At the junction with Kenilworth Close, the corner properties display similar architectural characteristics, albeit distinguished by the inclusion of a catslide roof element, which serves to visually terminate their respective rows. The cohesive group on Holly Lane East contribute strongly to the character and appearance of the area. 7. The proposed development would introduce a second gable to the front elevation which would appear as an uncharacteristic addition. Notwithstanding its set back of approximately 0.5 metres, this element would compete with and dominate the existing principal front gable, thereby disrupting the otherwise cohesive and balanced composition of both the appeal dwelling and the wider group of which it forms part. Furthermore, the associated increase in ridge height would add appreciable mass and scale, drawing further attention to the uncharacteristic form and intensifying its visual prominence. The presence of a lower roof element to the front does not mitigate this harm. Whilst views from the main road are filtered by mature vegetation, the front elevation remains clearly visible and readily appreciable from Holly Lane East, where the harmful effects would be most evident. 8. In addition, the proposal would introduce two gables with pitched roofs to the rear elevation, one of which would replace an existing hipped element. This would disrupt the pleasant and consistent character of the rear elevation of the dwelling and the wider group. The second, larger gable, would increase the ridge height and, by reason of its mass and scale, would dominate the rear roofscape, further eroding the cohesive character of the group. Whilst the rear elevation is less visible from the public domain, it is nonetheless experienced from neighbouring properties. 9. The appellant maintains that a small crown roof would not be uncharacteristic of the area. Whilst such features do not appear to be original, there are examples of small crown roof elements within extensions across the character group. I therefore accept that a crown roof of limited extent would not, in itself, appear uncharacteristic at this location in this instance. I also agree that the materials proposed could be controlled by condition. However, these considerations would not outweigh or overcome the harm identified above. 10. Reference has been made to other properties in the vicinity which have benefitted from roof extensions and altered roof forms. However, no substantive details of these developments have been provided. Consequently, it has not been demonstrated under which development plan and against which policies they were considered. In the absence of such information, I am unable to draw meaningful comparisons with the appeal proposal and, accordingly, I attribute these examples limited weight. I have also determined this appeal on its own individual planning merits. 11. In conclusion, the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the appeal building and the wider area. Accordingly, the proposal would conflict with policy DES1 of the Reigate and Banstead Local Plan Development Management Plan (2019), insofar as it seeks high quality development that makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area and reinforces local distinctiveness. The proposal would also conflict with Appeal Decision 6007710 3 the design guidance in the Reigate and Banstead Borough Council Supplementary Planning Guidance on Householder Extensions and Alterations (2004) and the Reigate and Banstead Borough Council Local Character and Distinctiveness Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2021), insofar as they seek well designed development that respects and responds to its context, incorporates appropriate roof design and respects the appearance of the host property. Conclusion and Recommendation 12. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. Scott Wilson APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 13. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. A M Nilsson INSPECTOR