Appeal 6006865

As set out above, there are two appeals at this site. They differ in respect of the design of the dwellings, with Appeal A proposing two semi-detached dwellings and Appeal B proposing two detached dwellings. I have considered each proposal on its individual merits. However, to avoid duplication, I have dealt with the two schemes together, except where otherwise indicated.

The decision notice incorrectly identified the conservation area (CA) and residential area of special character (RASC) within which the appeal site is located. The correct names are, respectively, [name] and [name] & [site address] RASC. I have determined the appeal on this basis. Appeal Decision 6006865 and 6006867

The main issue in both appeals is whether the proposals would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA and the effect of the proposals on the character and appearance of the RASC.

The appeal site forms part of a planned estate constructed in the early part of the twentieth century, characterised by detached dwellings set back from the road on large plots, within a mature, leafy landscape setting. The estate is identified as a RASC in the Development Management Plan Policy Map. The supporting text to Policy DES3 of the Reigate & Banstead Local Plan Development Management Plan Adopted September 2019 (DMP) identifies that RASCs are recognised for their individual identity and distinct character, which warrants a specific design approach to ensure these characteristics are retained, protected and enhanced.

The earliest part of the estate, centred on the area between [address], Forest Drive, [site address] and The Chase, is designated as a CA. Its significance derives from its origins as a planned Edwardian estate and the overall unity of its arts and crafts architecture, albeit with variations in the size and design of individual dwellings. The majority of the houses were built between 1909 and 1913 and were designed by [name] based loosely on the Surrey farmhouse vernacular. The houses are typically two storeys high with asymmetrical designs featuring steeply pitched roofs, prominent gables and chimneys, and tile hanging mixed with render. The CA largely retains its original architectural character and landscape setting.

Although the appeal site is situated within the CA, it contains a postwar bungalow which does not exhibit the architectural characteristics of the original estate. The plot appears to have resulted from the subdivision of a larger plot, but despite this its dimensions are not significantly different from some of the smaller plots within the CA, and it possesses a mature landscape character. It is common ground between the main parties that the existing dwelling does not contribute to the CA’s significance, which is confirmed by planning permission having previously been granted but not implemented to demolish it and replace it with a block of four flats1.

Both proposals would subdivide the existing plot to create two narrower plots. The pair of existing vehicular entrances would be retained, with sliding gates linked by a front boundary wall/fence. The existing front garden would be largely hard surfaced to provide two separate parking areas, which would be separated by a fence and hedge. Although existing trees would be retained and some new hedges planted, there would be a significant overall loss of soft landscaping, with the two separate parking areas clearly signifying that the plot had been subdivided.

The houses shown in both schemes would be two storeys high, with accommodation within the roof space. They would be significantly deeper than the existing bungalow, but there are examples of similarly deep properties within the CA, and so this aspect of their design is not objectionable. Both schemes would incorporate arts and crafts elements, including steeply pitched roofs, projecting gables, and tile hanging and render. The design of the pair of semi-detached houses is more successful in this respect as it incorporates a front gable with 1 PINS reference APP/L3625/W/19/3221313 Appeal Decision 6006865 and 6006867 catslide roof, and its massing would be comparable with detached properties found within the CA. It also has a greater separation distance to the side boundaries, which is important given the increase in height compared with the existing bungalow.

However, notwithstanding the arts and crafts elements, both schemes would be identifiable as a pair of houses. In the case of the detached units, this would be obvious from the separation of the two buildings; whilst in the semi-detached units, the underlying symmetry of the houses and the two front doors would together denote a pair of dwellings. The larger flat roofed area of the semi-detached dwellings compared with that of the consented scheme would be to the detriment of the building’s appearance. Although the dwellings lack chimneys, I recognise that the consented scheme did not include chimneys. The appellant has asserted that the Council initially advised that a pair of semi-detached dwellings would be acceptable, but such an officer’s opinion is not binding on the Council.

Taken these factors together, the subdivision of the plot would harmfully depart from the generous plot widths which are a fundamental characteristic of the CA. I have been mindful of the previous permission for four flats on the site, which remains extant following the commencement of development and represents a legitimate fallback position. The plans for the flats showed a two/three storey building of similar massing to the proposed pair of semi-detached houses, and slightly higher than both proposals. However, that scheme would not have subdivided the plot, and incorporated a more sympathetic treatment of the front garden area, along with proposing a single front door.

I have had regard to the implemented planning permission at [address], opposite the appeal site, where a single dwelling was replaced by a block of seven flats and a detached house2. Whilst that proposal resulted in the subdivision of a plot, the plot was substantial and had two road frontages, with the result that a spacious scheme was achieved which had a more overtly arts and crafts appearance whilst avoiding narrow plots or hard surfaced frontages.

Policy DES3 of the DMP provides detailed criteria for residential development within RASCs. These include that plots widths and boundary treatment should reflect the existing street context; soft and hard landscaping should be sensitive to the plot, its setting and prevailing plot boundary characteristics; inappropriate sub-division of existing curtilages below the prevailing size in the area should be avoided; and the layout of parking should not be dominant within the site. My findings above indicate that the scheme would not satisfy any of these requirements, with resultant harm to the character and appearance of the RASC.

S72(1) of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 places a statutory duty on decision makers to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a CA. Appeal A (semi-detached houses) would result in a moderate degree of less than substantial harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset, whilst Appeal B (detached houses) would result in a high degree of less than substantial harm to the asset. Paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that in such circumstances, the harm should be weighed against the public benefits. 2 PINS reference APP/L3625/A/12/2185895 Appeal Decision 6006865 and 6006867

Both proposals would deliver a net additional family dwelling in a sustainable location, which would contribute towards meeting the Council’s housing targets. There would be economic benefits both during construction and from future residents utilising local businesses. The removal of the existing bungalow which does not conform to the prevailing character of the CA might be considered a public benefit.

Against the public benefits I must weigh the harm to the heritage asset. The Framework states that great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation, irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to significance. Any harm to the significance of a heritage asset should require clear and convincing justification. In the heritage balance, I have given limited weight to the economic, social and environmental benefits. However, the adverse impact on the CA is a matter of considerable importance and weight. [name] have found that Appeal A would result in a moderate degree of less than substantial harm, compared with [name] high degree of less than substantial harm, in both cases the overall harm to the heritage asset outweighs the benefits.

I therefore conclude that the proposals would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA and would harm the character and appearance of the RASC, contrary to policies NHE9, DES1, DES2 and DES3 of the DMP. Together these policies set out the Council’s strategy for preserving heritage assets and the historic environment, which generally aligns with the approach set out in the Framework, and provide guidance on the design of new development including development on garden land.

Both proposals would provide an additional dwelling, with associated social and economic benefits which I have set out above. However, none of these factors is sufficient to outweigh the harm to a heritage asset and the character and appearance of the area which I have identified.

For the above reasons, the proposals conflict 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 appeals should be dismissed.