Two / single storey side / rear extension and alterations

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 3 June 2026 by Scott Wilson LL.B. MSc MRTPI Decision by L McKay MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 19th August 2026 Appeal Ref: 6008239 Firs Hill, High Road, Chipstead, Surrey CR5 3QN  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 Steve Lamb against the decision of Reigate and Banstead Borough Council.  The application reference is 25/02108/HHOLD.  The development proposed is two / single storey side / rear extension and alterations. 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 Matter 3. Having reviewed the most recent changes to the National Planning Policy Framework, I am satisfied that they do not affect the substance of the main issues in the appeal. Since they would not therefore be prejudiced, I have proceeded without further consultation with the main parties. Main Issues 4. The main issues are:  The effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area, with particular regard to the Walpole Avenue Residential Area of Special Character (RASC) and the setting of the Walpole Avenue and Starrock Green Conservation Area (CA).  The effect of the development on the living conditions of the neighbouring property, Swaylands. Reasons for the Recommendation Character and Appearance 5. The appeal property comprises a two-storey residential dwelling situated within a generously proportioned rectangular plot. The building is set back from the highway and is enclosed by mature vegetation on all sides, except for a break along the shared boundary with the neighbouring Swaylands. Appeal Decision 6008239 2 6. The site is located within the RASC. The surrounding area is characterised by individual detached dwellings, many of which date from the early twentieth century and exhibit distinctive Arts and Crafts architectural qualities that make a positive contribution to local character. Development in the vicinity is typically set within generous plots, resulting in a spacious, low-density pattern. Whilst there is some variation in design, there remains a consistent use of comparable building forms and materials. Collectively, these characteristics establish a coherent and attractive character and provide a gradual transition between the built-up area and the surrounding countryside. The area is further notable for the limited extent of infilling or redevelopment. 7. The proposed development would introduce a first-floor element to part of the building and extend a two-storey section towards the shared boundary with Swaylands. The proposal would result in a substantial increase in the massing and scale of all elevations and would significantly extend the overall width of the building close to the shared boundaries, despite retaining a small gap either side. When taken together with the large two-storey rear extension, the development would markedly expand the footprint, resulting in a dominant, rectangular form occupying much of the plot width. 8. The symmetry of the fenestration, both horizontally and vertically, taken together with the form, would result in a Georgian character. Such detail would be at odds with the established character of the area, which is defined by buildings with distinctive Arts and Crafts architectural qualities set within spacious plots and with clear separation between them. Despite retaining the concept of the front feature gable, the design and otherwise rigid and expansive built form would conflict with the prevailing character. 9. This harm would be compounded by the introduction of a double-hipped roof incorporating a central valley gutter. This form would appear alien when compared to the typically steeply pitched roofs and prominent chimney features characteristic of the surrounding area. 10. I am directed to planning permission granted at ‘Ashleigh’1 and I am provided with some detail, including plans. That proposal was separated from neighbouring properties on one side by an access road differentiating it from the subject appeal in terms of spatial relationship to its plot and other properties. Although that application proposed a substantial increase in size, it is not directly comparable to the size and scale of the subject appeal. Furthermore, the design of that property incorporated architectural design features, such as the roof, which were compatible with the surrounding area. I therefore distinguish that grant of planning permission from the subject appeal and afford it little weight. 11. Whilst the appeal site is not located within the CA, it is adjacent to its boundary. The significance of the CA is set out in the Planning Committee report dated 6 March 2024. The designation derives from a concentration of well-designed Arts and Crafts buildings, characterised by the consistent use of local materials, steep roof pitches, prominent chimney stacks, and asymmetrical compositions, including works by notable architects such as George Blair Imrie. Its significance extends beyond individual buildings to encompass their generous plots, mature vegetation, and the strong integration of built form with the landscape, giving rise to a spacious, 1 19/01831/HOLD Appeal Decision 6008239 3 low-density character. Overall, the CA derives particular importance from the cohesion and group value of its buildings and their setting, which Historic England identifies as being of special architectural interest. 12. The overall form, scale and spacious, low-density character of the CA can be readily appreciated from the public highway. During my site visit, which I recognise represents a snapshot in time, I observed a notable level of pedestrian activity, including walkers and runners, and the presence of speed limits, which is indicative of its village-like environment. I was able to walk through the area and directly experience its qualities, including the mature vegetation, the prevalence of Arts and Crafts style buildings, and the limited extent of infilling or redevelopment. The CA reads as a coherent and unified composition. In addition, I observed along High Road that the scale of development, when combined with spacious plots and mature landscaping, contributes positively to a strong and attractive village setting which complements the CA. The setting is therefore not merely attractive; it is an important part of the area’s overall significance. 13. Given the importance of the setting of the CA and the proximity and visual prominence of the appeal site, it follows that harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling, and the surrounding area will result in harm to the setting of the CA. The proposal would adversely affect elements that make a positive contribution to the setting of the CA, namely the generous nature of the plots and the spatial relationship of the buildings to plot size, the construction and detailing, and would fail to better reveal its significance. Whilst the harm to the significance of the CA as a whole is limited, this is a matter of considerable weight and importance. Having regard to the Framework I must also balance this harm against any public benefits. 14. I accept that the proposal could create a more efficient and usable living environment. However, I have not been provided with any evidence of the necessity of these matters or how they would provide any public benefit. I therefore consider them personal benefits that would not outweigh the harm identified. 15. The use of high-quality materials is commendable in its attempt to reflect detailing characteristic of the area. I accept that material usage combined with policy compliance can create suitable schemes. However, in this instance, I do not consider that the use of plain clay roof tiles, rendered elevations and timber sash windows would by themselves be a public benefit, particularly when I have found harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling, the surrounding area, and the setting of the CA. I afford this matter little weight. 16. The proposal would provide some economic benefit through the employment of local construction workers and associated construction services and their use of local businesses. However, given the scale of the proposal any benefit would be limited, and therefore carries little weight. 17. I therefore conclude that the public benefits would not outweigh the harm I have found to the significance of the CA. 18. Consequently, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling, the RASC and the setting of the CA. Accordingly the proposal would conflict with Policies DES1, DES3 and NHE9 of the Reigate and Banstead Development Management Plan (2019), and Policy CS4 of the Reigate and Banstead Local Plan Core Strategy (2014), insofar as they seek high quality design Appeal Decision 6008239 4 that promotes and reinforces local distinctiveness and conserves and enhances heritage assets and their setting. 19. Furthermore, the proposal would conflict with guidance in the Reigate and Banstead Borough Council Local Character and Distinctiveness Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2021), insofar as it seeks well designed development that respects and responds to its context, incorporates appropriate scale, width and footprint, and has a roof design that follows the pitch, eaves height, ridge height and form within the road, amongst other things. 20. The proposal also conflicts with the design and heritage policies of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2025). Living Conditions 21. The appeal building currently exists in a side by side relationship with its neighbour Swaylands. The proposed side extension and further rear extension would place a flank wall at approximately two metres from the shared boundary with an eaves height of approximately 5.65 metres. Whilst there would be no fenestration on this flank wall it would project beyond Swaylands rear building line by six metres, approximately. It would present a significant material increase in mass and scale directly adjacent to Swaylands outdoor amenity space and would be overbearing. 22. There is a gap in the mature vegetation on the shared boundary and at this location the boundary treatment is limited to a fence. Given the proximity, height and depth of the proposal, the experience from the dedicated outdoor seating area of Swaylands would be one of an overbearing flank wall. Whilst the remaining garden would be unaffected by the proposal, that would not mitigate the adverse impact to the dedicated seating area. 23. Likewise, the proximity to the boundary taken together with the height and depth of the proposal would lead to an overbearing presence when viewed from the first floor window closest to the proposal. This would be experienced as overbearing despite the fact that the plans show that the proposal would not breach a 45-degree line to the rear windows of Swaylands. Views from other rear facing windows at Swaylands would provide views of the proposal; however, these would be too oblique to materially affect outlook. 24. Consequently, the proposal would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of Swaylands with particular regard to overbearing. Accordingly, the proposal would conflict with Policy DES1 of the Reigate and Banstead Development Management Plan (2019), and Policy CS4 of the Reigate and Banstead Local Plan Core Strategy (2014), insofar as they require high quality design with no adverse impact on neighbouring occupiers and that the impact on surrounding properties is minimised. 25. The proposal would also conflict with the guidance in the Reigate and Banstead Borough Council Supplementary Planning Guidance on Householder Extensions and Alterations (2004), insofar as it seeks good design that does not appear overbearing when viewed from neighbouring properties. Other Matters 26. The appellant maintains that the proposal would comply with several policies within the development plan. I accept that the proposal would comply with some aspects of the development plan, its objectives and supporting texts; however, these Appeal Decision 6008239 5 compliances would be neutral considerations that would not outweigh the harm identified as a result of conflict with other development plan policies. 27. The appellant has referred to other developments in the area in addition to the previously discussed Ashleigh. However, I have not been provided with any substantive detail of these other developments. Therefore, I cannot be certain under which development plan and against which policies they were considered or if they even have planning permission at all. Consequently, I cannot draw direct comparisons to the subject appeal and afford them little weight in my consideration. Conclusion and Recommendation 28. The proposal would conflict with policies of the development plan and there are no material considerations, including the benefits of the proposal, which justify granting permission contrary to the development plan. Therefore, 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 29. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. L McKay INSPECTOR