Appeal 3268315
Public case and site metadata stored from the official casework database, including fields that were empty in the source release.
A clearer next step
See how Inspectors approached issues like yours
Bring your planning decision into a private workspace. We separate the disputed points, then match them with source-located Inspector reasoning from similar appeals.
- See which issues the decision appears to turn on
- Compare the facts and open the full appeal records
One private comparison
How the refusal review worksOne-off service · No subscription
Similar appeals are evidence to inspect, not a prediction of your outcome.
Official decision document
The decision, section by section
5 sections
Read the development description and the Inspector’s text from the official decision PDF in source order. Source headings are retained where available. Personal and contact details are removed by an automated privacy filter; this is source material, not Rules for You analysis.
Section 01
Development description
demolition of existing conservatory. Build of single storey rear extension to replace.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
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.
Section 04
Reasons
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.
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.
The property is locally listed. Policy NHE9 of the Reigate and Banstead Local Plan Development Management Plan (2019) requires new development to 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.
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.
Section 05
Conclusion
For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.
Planning inspector and document dates
The official casework attribution is grouped under a one-way keyed hash and shown only by its local identifier. Decision-letter dates and page references are extracted by fixed first-page rules and checked against that authoritative record.
Appeal Decision
- Extracted inspector · page 1
- Inspector attribution ID 106No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 22 October 2021Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 20 September 2021 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3268315
- Application reference
- 19/02489/HHOLD
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Reigate and Banstead Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000211
Casework details
The casework, procedure, development and linking details supplied by the official record.
- Casework type
- Householder (HAS)
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development type
- Householder developments
- Appeal type reason
- 1. Refused planning permission
- Appeal reason
- Refusal
- Type detail
- Planning Appeals - Full
- Jurisdiction
- Transferred
- Link status
- Not Linked
Site and development
Published appeal-site measurements and planning designations, without the withheld precise location fields.
- Site area
- Not recorded
- Floor space
- Not recorded
- Number of residences
- 0
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- No
- Affects setting of a listed building
- Yes
- Historic building grant made
- Not recorded
- Relates to a conservation area
- Not recorded
- Flooding is an issue
- Not recorded
- Site within an AONB
- Not recorded
- Site within an SSSI
- Not recorded
Decision and dates
The published outcome and every imported case date.
- Official decision
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 4 February 2021
- Valid date
- 4 February 2021
- Start date
- 11 May 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 30 December 2020
- Appeal decision date
- 22 October 2021
Case administration
Published recovery, call-in, costs and enforcement information for this case.
- Redetermined
- No
- Bespoke
- No
- Date recovered
- Not recorded
- Date not recovered or derecovered
- Not recorded
- Call-in date
- Not recorded
- Costs applied for
- No
- Enforcement grounds count
- Not recorded
- Enforcement grounds
- Not recorded
Source and catalogue history
When this record appeared in the rolling official release and when the catalogue stored it.
- Source
- Planning Inspectorate casework database
- Source data system
- Horizon
- Dataset status
- Current release
- Catalogue record ID
- 4970
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:25
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21