Replacement front door and front facing windows

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 2 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: 10 July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6007822 60 West Hill, Epsom, Surrey KT19 8LF • 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 Kevin Gamblin against the decision of Epsom and Ewell Borough Council. • The application Ref is 25/01308/FLH. • The development proposed is a replacement front door and front facing windows. 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. Preliminary Matters 3. I have taken the description of development from the Council’s Decision Notice as this is more precise. The Council’s decision relates to the front door and facing front windows. I have considered the appeal on the same basis. 4. During my site visit, I observed a development which appeared the same as that shown on the plans. I have therefore determined the appeal on the basis that planning permission is sought to retain the development that has been constructed and for clarity, based on what is shown on the plans. Main Issue 5. The main issue is whether the development preserves or enhances the character or appearance of the Stamford Green Conservation Area (CA). Reasons for the Recommendation 6. The site comprises a two-storey semi-detached residential dwelling located on the northern side of West Hill and is located within the CA. The Stamford Green Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management Proposals (2007) (the CAA) identifies key elements of the historic core, whose significance lies in its distinctive village character with reminders of “old” Surrey. Whilst there are some earlier buildings, 19th and 20th century houses predominate. West Hill is the principal spine of the CA, a historic route, connecting The Fair Green, Clayfield Green, and Stamford Green. The appeal property lies close to Clayfield Green, on the north-eastern side of West Hill, which the CAA notes for its cohesive late 19th Appeal Decision 6007822 2 century development that sits back slightly from the road with paired cottages and one much larger house, now Kingswood House School. It provides a consistent pattern and scale of buildings and is an important part of views of Clayfield Green, contributing to key townscape views and to how the space is defined. 7. Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 sets out that special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of Conservation Areas. The appeal property is part of this cohesive group, which displays period features, including what appear to be timber framed sash windows, amongst other things. 8. The development has introduced uPVC windows and doors to both the principal and rear elevations. To the front elevation, the windows incorporate applied glazing bars and a woodgrain finish in a muted colour, intended to reflect the appearance of the original ‘8 over 8’ sash windows, an example of which survives on the adjoining property. However, the comparatively thick uPVC framing, together with the alternative opening mechanisms, fails to replicate the proportions, detailing and method of operation characteristic of traditional timber sliding sash windows. The CAA identifies that new windows and doors should be of traditional construction, design and materials, similar to that originally used and sympathetic to the building as a whole. The use of uPVC and aluminium is generally out of character and therefore inappropriate. 9. Given the prominence of the front elevation in key townscape views, these alterations are materially at odds with the established character and appearance of the semi-detached pair and the wider cohesive group, where the prevailing form is that of timber-framed sliding sash windows. 10. Consequently, the appeal property appears uncharacteristic and is harmfully distinguished from the otherwise cohesive group. This lack of consistency is further increased by the design of the front door, whose glazed aperture and overall form do not reflect the established style of the group. Collectively, these alterations erode the uniformity and local distinctiveness which underpin the character of this part of West Hill. 11. I have been directed to other properties with uPVC windows in the area. However, I do not have any substantive evidence before me to demonstrate against which iteration of the development plan and against which policies these developments were considered, or if they even have permission at all. In the absence of this evidence, I cannot be certain how the other properties relate to the specific considerations of the subject appeal. Consequently, I afford them limited weight in my consideration. 12. Given the scale and location of the development, I consider it leads to an erosion of the significance of the CA and results in harm. The harm to the significance of the CA is less than substantial in terms of the National Planning Policy Framework (December 2024) (the Framework) and is in the middle of the scale. Nevertheless, it is a matter of great importance and weight. 13. I am required to balance this harm against any public benefits of the development. I accept that the development creates enhanced acoustic insulation. However, this is a predominantly a personal benefit that does not outweigh the harm identified and a comparison with less harmful installations has not been made. Appeal Decision 6007822 3 14. I accept that improved thermal performance and insulation could result in lower carbon emissions, which could be a public benefit. However, I have no evidence to demonstrate how they will measurably improve carbon emissions. Therefore, I cannot be certain that a public benefit has been demonstrated, and even if there were such a benefit, given the small scale of the development, it does not outweigh the harm I have identified. 15. The appellant maintains that replacing the poor condition softwood windows along with shutters is a public benefit. However, given I have concluded that the replacements are harmful, this does not outweigh the harm identified. 16. Consequently, the development fails to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA. Accordingly, the development conflicts with Policies CS1 and CS5 of the Core Strategy (2007) and Policies DM8, DM9 and DM10 of the Development Management Policies Document (2015), insofar as they seek high quality development that conserves and enhances the significance of heritage assets. In addition, the development conflicts with the relevant paragraphs of the Framework, insofar as they also seek to conserve and enhance heritage assets. Other Matters 17. I acknowledge that the boundaries and hedges are retained. However, this is a neutral consideration and does not weigh in favour of the development. 18. I note that the appellant maintains that no objections were submitted. However, a lack of objections does not equate to support for the scheme and does not outweigh the harm identified. Conclusion and Recommendation 19. 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 20. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. A M Nilsson INSPECTOR