Appeal 6004413

The appeal is dismissed.

Extensions and alterations to the appeal dwelling at Sefton, [site address] , were granted in September 2025 subject to conditions. The appellant seeks to vary Condition 3 on planning permission 25/01311/HHOLD to allow alternative materials, as shown on the two revised plans (drawing nos 4911/PRWE [name] and 4911/PFEE [name]) submitted with this appeal.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the appeal dwelling and surrounding area.

The appeal site comprises a detached dwelling located within the [name] and [site address] Residential Area of Special Character (RASC). [site address] and surrounding area are typified by large, detached dwellings set within generous plots, with mature planting, wide verges and a verdant, low-density and spacious character. Buildings are typically set back from the road and exhibit a variety of architectural styles. However, despite this variation, there is a prevailing emphasis on traditionally influenced dwellings, often incorporating pitched roofs, prominent gables and a consistent use of high-quality materials which together contribute to a coherent and locally distinctive character.

The approved scheme1 establishes a clear and coherent architectural approach. It would be unified through a consistent use of traditional materials, with extensive tile hanging across the upper storey, sitting above a brick base. This creates a strong hierarchy, with the roofscape and tile-hung elements providing texture and articulation, and the brickwork visually anchoring the building. The consistent material treatment would result in a cohesive and well-balanced composition.

By contrast, the appeal proposal would replace substantial areas of tile hanging with render and introduce a crosswall treatment across the principal elevations. This would alter the cohesive composition of the approved dwelling. The reduction in tile hanging would erode the textural richness and layering achieved by the approved scheme, resulting in a flatter and less articulated appearance. The use of render across broad sections of the facades and the introduction of crosswall treatments would emphasise vertical divisions, giving the front elevation a more segmented and less coherent form. In this respect, the crosswall approach and resultant appearance would not reflect the local vernacular.

There is a variety of finishing materials along [site address] and immediate area. I observed various combinations of brickwork and render. However, these dwellings generally exhibit a more coherent and balanced approach to their design. Where render is used, it is often either applied consistently across the building or incorporated as part of a clearly defined architectural style, such as [name] detailing. I did not observe examples where render and brick are combined in the manner proposed, nor the use of crosswall treatments.

I have considered the appellant’s reliance on examples of other permissions within the area. In particular, the submitted CGI of the replacement dwelling at Winneba2 shows a building which, although largely rendered, presents a coherent and well-resolved design. The elevation adopts a consistent approach, with a restrained palette and a clear hierarchy of elements. The steeply pitched front-facing gables establish a strong rhythm across the façade, and are articulated with small, carefully placed areas of brickwork at the gable margins and junctions. Together with features such as moulded string courses and well-proportioned openings, this 1 Planning permission Ref 25/01311/HHOLD 2 Ref 21/00381/F results in a cohesive and visually attractive finish that draws clearly from traditional architecture.

The revised proposal would not achieve a comparable outcome. The combination of render, hanging tiles, retained brickwork and crosswall treatment would result in a more fragmented and less disciplined composition, with materials appearing to compete rather than work together. The Winneba example therefore does not support the appellant’s case. I have limited information about other permissions in the area, and I therefore cannot decisively draw out any accurate comparisons to support the proposal.

In my view, the proposal would dilute the traditional and locally distinctive qualities that characterise the RASC, rather than reinforce them. It would therefore fail to make a positive contribution to local character. The appellant states that the RASC designation does not prescribe architectural styles or require the use of specific materials. However, the policy requires development to make a positive contribution to the character of the area and promote local distinctiveness. Those objectives necessarily extend to the choice and composition of materials, which are fundamental to how a building is perceived.

The appeal site lies outside, but close to, the Kingswood Conservation Area (KCA). Its significance derives from its planned Arts and Crafts character, including the use of traditional materials and detailed architectural forms. Whilst the proposal would not reflect those characteristics and would result in a less sympathetic design, its separation from the designated area and the absence of any clear visual relationship mean that any effect on the KCA would be limited. I therefore find that the proposal would preserve the significance of the KCA.

The condition in question, imposed on the original permission, is comprehensive in specifying the external materials and detailing. The specifications were imposed to secure a coherent and contextually appropriate design. I recognise this approach is relatively detailed, particularly given that there is variety and examples of rendered buildings within the wider area. However, the site lies within a RASC, where particular regard is given to local distinctiveness and design quality. In that context, it was reasonable to ensure that the substantial alterations would be executed using a consistent and traditionally informed palette of materials.

The matter before me is whether the proposed variation of the condition and revised plans (drawing nos 4911/PRWE [name] and 4911/PFEE [name]) would produce a development that responds appropriately to its context. For the reasons set out above, I find that they would not.

Given this, I conclude that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the appeal dwelling and surrounding area. It would conflict with Policies DES1 and DES3 of the Reigate and Banstead Local Plan – Development Management Plan 2019 (the Local Plan) insofar as they seek to ensure that new development is of high-quality design, makes a positive contribution to the character of [name] of Special Character (RASCs) and promotes local distinctiveness.

For the reasons set out in paragraph 11, I do not consider that the proposal would unacceptably harm the setting of the KCA. Therefore, it would not conflict with Policy NHE9 of the Local Plan which seeks to ensure that proposals preserve and enhance Conservation Areas.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.