Appeal 6004798

The appeal is dismissed.

The reason for refusal refers to conflict with the Reigate & Banstead Local Plan: [name] 2014 without identifying any specific policies, and neither the Council’s officer report nor statement of case provide clarity on the matter. I have therefore based my assessment on policies DES1 and DES2 of the Reigate & Banstead Local Plan Development Management Plan Adopted September 2019 (DMP), both of which are referred to in the reason for refusal.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site is located within a residential area of Redhill characterised by detached houses on good-sized plots, which the Council’s Local Character & Distinctiveness Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) characterises as 1930s-1950s Suburbia. Large estates at the time featured strongly linear road layouts, uniform building lines and a simplified ‘Arts and Crafts’ style.

Although the SPD identifies backland development as a current issue in the character area, substantial backland development has already occurred in the form of [address], a cul-de-sac running parallel with [address], and smaller developments at [address] (six houses) and [address] (2 houses). Although a previous application for eight dwellings at the rear of 6 to [address] was refused1, backland development is an established part of the character of [address] and it is common ground between the main parties that 1 LPA reference 20/01224/F the principle of backland development is acceptable. Based on my observations and the evidence before me, I find no reason to disagree.

Policy DES2 of the DMP provides design guidance on backland schemes, including that they should respect the scale, form and external materials of existing dwellings; their height, bulk, mass and siting should be in keeping with the street scene; there should be space for suitable landscaping; and they should not disrupt the character and appearance of the street frontage. [name] 3 in the SPD, which is a material consideration, provides detailed guidance on developing to the rear of existing housing. It emphasises that smaller units on smaller plots can match the scale, massing and traditional appearance of existing properties, and highlights the importance of achieving spacious layouts which benefit from landscaping and avoid car parking domination.

The proposal is for a tandem form of development, with the houses located directly behind the host property and sharing its driveway. To create space for an access to the rear, the host property’s garage would be demolished. The dwelling itself would be retained, ensuring that the existing street scene would be kept largely intact, notwithstanding the proposed minor realignment of the existing driveway. Moreover, the plot is large enough to support subdivision without the host property being cramped, and the density of the scheme would be comparable with other backland developments nearby. However, I share the Council’s concern that developing at the rear of just one property risks creating a visually detached development.

The SPD explains that backland development need not result in development which is out of character with the area, provided the scale, massing and appearance of the scheme reflects the local area. Houses in [address] are mixed in character and scale, but are predominantly detached two storey dwellings, both in the original suburban part and the more recent backland developments. Although set back from [address], the proposal would be visible in glimpsed views, and would be seen from a number of neighbouring properties. The proposed pair of semi-detached dwellings, whilst having an overall massing which has some similarity to larger individual detached houses in the road, would be clearly identifiable as a pair of linked houses on narrow plots. The proposal would depart from the prevailing character of the area and alter its appearance.

The dwellings would be faced with brick and render, and roofed with plain tiles, similar to nearby houses. The proposed hipped roof, front gable and bay windows would respond to the Arts and Crafts elements of existing houses locally. The proposed dormer windows are not characteristic of the area, but their visual impact would be lessened by being on the rear roof plane. However, the accommodation within the roof space would result in an uncharacteristically high ridge line and a large expanse of roof, at odds with the prevailing character of the area.

Although the houses would be inset from the boundaries of the site by an adequate amount, and would have rear gardens, the parking and turning area would leave minimal space for landscaping in front of the houses. The driveways are shown as grasscrete, which is not a substitute for landscaping, and would provide no visual benefit when cars are parked on it. The domination of the frontages by hard surfacing would be at odds with the generally spacious and landscaped frontages of properties in [address], which includes more recent backland developments.

My attention has been drawn to appeals for backland development at [address], [address] and 54 to 60 Carlton Road2. Each of the appeals was allowed, confirming that the principle of backland development is acceptable. However, the appeals related to detached houses on wider plots with a better balance of landscaping and hard surfacing at the front. The schemes are thus distinguishable from the proposal before me, and I attached limited weight to the findings of the Inspectors.

I am aware of infill dwellings which have been built at 1A, 3A and [address], and whilst they represent a densification of the area and an evolution of its character, they are not backland developments and so are not directly comparable with the proposal.

Taking all the above matters into account, the proposal would result in an unsatisfactory form of development which would be harmfully at odds with the prevailing character and appearance of the area. It would not achieve the government’s objective of ensuring that developments maintain a strong sense of place and are sympathetic to the surrounding environment and landscape setting. The proposal would conflict with Policy DES2 of the DMP, the aims of which I have outlined above, and Policy DES1 of the DMP, which requires the design of new development to promote and reinforce local distinctiveness and respect the character of the surrounding area.

The proposal would make efficient use of a large, underutilised garden in a sustainable location, where there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development.

The proposal responds to the Framework’s objective of delivering more housing. It would contribute to the Borough’s housing supply, with the Reigate and Banstead Housing Needs Assessment (2024) identifying a need for 1,123 homes per annum, against an average of 633 dwellings per annum having been built in the preceding five years. Whereas most housing over this period was 1 and 2 bed units, the proposal meets a need for larger homes.

I have noted the reduction in the scale of the scheme in response to the Council’s pre-application advice.

However, none of these factors is sufficient to outweigh the harm to local character and appearance which I have identified.

For the above reasons, the proposal conflicts with the development plan, when read as a whole. Material considerations do not indicate that a decision should be taken other than in accordance with the development plan. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.