Reigate and Banstead Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over character and appearance in Reigate and Banstead?
See what the selected examples say about spacing, fences, walls and gates.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 73 of 116
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 20
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 50
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 65
- of 73 matched records
AI-assisted. Cited sources and wording were checked before publication. Based on 5 source-linked examples shown below. Review method and limits.
Planning Data area point: Reigate and Banstead LPA (51.25324, −0.191844). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Reigate and Banstead Borough Council appeal findings
Reigate and Banstead’s spacing, fences and gates
The selected examples have a higher share of allowed appeals than the matched local set, and several extracts give only conclusions.
Counted against appeals
Lost spaciousness and boundary harm
Loss of spaciousness
The Inspector found the proposal would unacceptably harm the area’s sense of spaciousness.
Fence caused material harm
The Inspector concluded the boundary fence materially harmed the surrounding area’s character and appearance.
Conditions could not cure harm
The Inspector found the wall and gates harmed local character and appearance, and said conditions could not address that harm.
Helped or needed
Comparable gaps and no overall harm
Comparable first-floor gaps
Although it would narrow the gap, the remaining first-floor space resembled gaps further along the road.
No overall harm found
For the timber carport, gates and brick walls, the Inspector concluded the scheme as a whole would not harm character and appearance.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal say your proposal reduces the area’s sense of spaciousness?
- Does it say your fence, wall or gates damage surrounding character?
- Are the remaining gaps comparable with those further along your road?
The carport, gates and wall example gives only an overall conclusion, not its supporting assessment. These decisions do not predict another result.
Appeal evidence examples
Compare allowed and dismissed appeal reasoning
Each example separates the development, the Inspector-stated issue that selected it, and the reasoning from the decision. Compare the facts as well as the outcome: these examples do not predict how a different proposal would be decided.
Allowed appeal examples
2 examples
9 December 2024 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
upper storey flank extension, single storey flat-roof rear extension and small single storey front extension with a mono-pitch (lean-to) roof over.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposed extension would add height in the form of a second floor to the side but would not project closer to the boundary than the existing single storey element. It would reduce the gap between the site and No 15 at first floor level and would not leave the one metre gap recommended in paragraph 5.4.2 of the Reigate and Banstead Borough Council Supplementary Planning Guidance Householder Extensions & Alterations 2004 (SPG). Nonetheless, the remaining space between the properties at first floor level would be similar to that between other properties further down the road. Therefore, it would not be out of keeping with the character and appearance of this street in this respect.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
7 February 2024 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
for a proposed detached timber framed carport to front driveway area and 2 new entrance gates with brick pillars and splayed brick walls.
Issue identified by the Inspector
I consider the main issue to be the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude in respect of the main issue that the proposed development, when taken as a whole, would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the RASC. It therefore pays sufficient regard to the Council’s relevant design guidance and there would be no material conflict with the aims of [name] DES1 and DES3 as they relate to the quality of development and protection of the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
29 September 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as a proposed single and double storey rear extension, proposed double side extension and front extensions with porch, proposed loft conversion with rear dormer, and raised ridge internal modernisation and alterations.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Therefore, the proposed development would unacceptably harm the sense of spaciousness to the detriment of the character and appearance of the area. The proposed development would conflict with the relevant provisions of Policy DES1 of the Reigate & Banstead Local Plan Development Management Plan 2019. This, amongst other things, looks to promote attractive, high-quality design which responds to local distinctiveness and legibility of place.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
7 July 2021 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as boundary fence to front of property to replace the existing hedge.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Overall, for the reasons given above I am satisfied that the boundary fence does cause material harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. It therefore would conflict with policy DES1 of the Reigate and Banstead Local Plan Development Management Plan 2019 which requires all new development to be of a high quality design and which amongst other matters promotes and reinforces local distinctiveness and respect for the character of the surrounding area, including positive physical characteristics of local neighbourhoods and the visual appearance of the immediate street scene.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
5 March 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as ’Retrospective Application Existing gate & compound wall drawings’.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Therefore, the wall and gates harm the character and appearance of the local area and this harm cannot be addressed by conditions. As such, they are contrary to Appeal Planning Officer APP/L3625/D/24/3351731 Policy DES1 of the Reigate and Banstead Local Plan Development Management Plan (adopted 2019) which requires development to respect the character of the surrounding area.
Paragraph 13 · Source pages 2, 3