Appeal 6004164

The appeal is allowed and the details submitted pursuant to condition No 4 of planning permission [name]/2025/0121/FUL granted on 2 September 2025 in accordance with the application dated 6 October 2025 and the details submitted with it are approved.

Condition 4 requires details and a sample of the rooftile proposed to be used in the approved rear extension to be submitted and approved. The condition was imposed following disagreement about the rooftile specified in the original planning application.

The appellant’s submission refers to products of different colours, including an alternative in charcoal grey. However, the Procedural Guide1 is clear that the appeal process should not be used to evolve the proposal. At my request, the Planning Inspectorate’s case officer wrote to the main parties to clarify exactly what approval is sought for, and both confirmed that the details are those identified in the heading above.

The Council received a physical sample of the product in question in September

[name] have not seen this sample, in my experience it is not uncommon for materials to be approved based on illustrations alone and those provided form a sufficient basis for my assessment. [name] am considering the same details as had been before the Council, no party would be prejudiced by proceeding on this basis. 1 Procedural Guide: Planning appeals – England. For appeals relating to applications dated on or before 31 March 2026.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed rooftile on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, including whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Gossops Green Neighbourhood Centre Conservation Area (‘the CA’).

The site lies within the CA, the boundary of which is drawn around the neighbourhood centre, made up of its shops and services, as well as housing areas. I am mindful that Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires special attention to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas.

This part of Gossops Green formed part of the original phase of Crawley’s New Town expansion. It is regarded as a successful example of planning and layout around a neighbourhood unit concept, with consequent historical and architectural interest. Insofar as it relates to this appeal, I consider the significance of the CA to be associated with its architectural interest, particularly the broadly coherent palette of materials and colours used in external finishes.

Development Guidance 3.9 of the Council’s Urban Design Guide SPD (2016) relates to householder development. It states that materials and colours should match the existing dwelling or, where appropriate, contrast with it. It goes onto say that materials allowed for extensions in Conservation Areas tend to be limited so as to not diminish the historic integrity of the structure.

The appeal site contains an end-terrace, 2-storey dwelling and rear garden. Its scale, appearance and materials are typical of the buildings in the surrounding streetscene. As noted in the Council’s Gossops Green Neighbourhood Centre Draft Conservation Area Appraisal (February 2021), this form of housing development is broadly consistent with that found more widely in Crawley. Given that context, I am not convinced that the contribution made by the appeal building to the CA’s overall architectural interest is such that the limited introduction of modern materials there would automatically justify refusal.

The site adjoins a parking area and its boundary to this is marked by a brick wall. The proposal would be well set away from this boundary and only parts of its roof would be visible above the existing boundary wall, resulting in a well contained visual impact from outside of the site. The colour of the proposed rooftile would complement the tones of surrounding brick and assist the proposal to integrate with its surroundings. Whilst the proposed rooftile would not match the texture and thickness of the concrete interlocking tiles used in the main roof, this contrasting appearance would help to ensure that the original dwelling’s massing and form remain legible and that the proposal appears subordinate to the dwelling. The proposal would have a neutral effect on, and therefore preserve, the character or appearance of the CA as a whole.

Thus, I conclude that the proposal would have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. It would also preserve the character or appearance of the CA and would meet the requirements of Section 72(1) of the Act. As such, it would not harm the significance of this designated heritage asset. I find no conflict with the relevant provisions of Policies DD1, CL2 and HA2 of the Crawley Borough Local Plan (2023-2040). Amongst other things, those policies seek to ensure that proposals preserve the architectural quality of conservation areas.

For the reasons given above, the appeal should be allowed.