- Decision
- dismissed, 24 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: C Shearing
- Authority
- Sevenoaks (South East)
- Appeal reference
- 6007698
- Application reference
- 25/03503/CONVAR
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Section 73 application to vary the materials condition on a householder permission for extensions (25/01916/HOUSE), to use smooth grey concrete roof tiles in place of tiles matching the existing red roof
- Site context
- inside settlement
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- DP3(1), DP3(3), S4(2)(c)
- Development plan policies
- Sevenoaks Allocations and Development Management Plan 2015 EN1, Sevenoaks Core Strategy 2011 SP1, Sevenoaks Town Neighbourhood Plan 2023 C4, Sevenoaks Residential Character Area Assessment 2012
- Main issues
- character and appearance of the area
Summary
A section 73 appeal to roof approved house extensions in smooth grey concrete tiles, where the house and street have red tiles, was dismissed. The mismatch would dilute a consistent roofscape recorded in the Council's character assessment. The inspector found conflict with DP3(1), took that to DP3(3) as a policy directing refusal, and under S4 found the private benefits substantially outweighed.
Issues and findings
- Transition. "Both main parties were invited to comment on this change and the responses received have been taken into account" (DL ¶7).
- Scope of section 73. "to alter the roof materials across the entirety of the roof is beyond the powers of S73 since it is not included in the original description of development" (DL ¶5).
- Character: HARM. "their introduction would also be in stark contrast with the prevailing roof materials in the area, heavily diluting its cohesive and distinctive character" (DL ¶10).
- No justification from other examples. "Together those other properties have different visual effects and circumstances, and do not provide justification for the harmful effects arising from this proposal" (DL ¶11).
- DP3(1) and DP3(3): FAIL. "While the Framework states that innovation or change should not be precluded in design terms, this is read among the context of a policy which requires development to respond to context so that it integrates with and enhances its surroundings, which would not be the case here" (DL ¶14). "As the proposal would fail to respond to its context or adhere to a local design standard, it would fail to comply with Policy DP3(1) and in turn DP3(3) which is one of the national decision-making policies which state that development proposals should be refused" (DL ¶14).
Planning balance
S4, with DP3(3) as the refusal policy: "Having regard to Policy S4, the benefits of approving the development, which are limited to private benefits to the appellant, are substantially outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL ¶14). The decision is then made in accordance with the development plan.
What made the difference
A documented local character. The Residential Character Area Assessment names brown or red roof tiles as part of what makes the area distinctive, and a neighbourhood plan policy requires development to take account of it. Because section 73 could only reach the approved extensions, the result would have been a two-tone roof, which made the harm worse. A full application to re-roof the whole house would raise a different question.
Transferable points
- DP3(1) and DP3(3) are applied to a householder materials condition, and DP3(3) is read as a "should be refused" policy feeding S4 (DL ¶14).
- The DP3(1) words on innovation or change are read in the context of the duty to respond to context (DL ¶14).
- A character area assessment given force by a neighbourhood plan policy is treated as a local design standard (DL ¶12, ¶14).
- Section 73 cannot be used to extend works beyond the original description of development (DL ¶5).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| DP3(1) | conflict | smooth grey tiles on the extensions would jar with the textured red tiles of the house and its neighbours; brown or red roof tiles are part of the distinctive character recorded in the Residential Character Area Assessment (Character Area C08); fails to respond to context or adhere to a local design standard (DL 9-10, 14) | |
| DP3(3) | fail | DP3(3) treated as a national policy stating that proposals should be refused; sporadic grey roofs elsewhere "do not provide justification"; the clear-justification wording is not quoted (DL 11, 14) | |
| S4(2)(c) | fail | mapped: the letter says "Having regard to Policy S4" and identifies DP3(3) as a refusal policy; S4(2)(c) is not cited by limb (DL 14) | |
| S4(1) | fail | benefits limited to private benefits to the appellant; substantially outweighed by the adverse effects (DL 14) |
Key facts
- The original permission was granted on 29 September 2025; condition 3 required the materials on the application form and plans, which showed roof tiles matching the existing (DL 2-3)
- The appellant wanted one uniform grey finish across the whole roof; re-roofing the existing roof was held to be outside section 73 because it is not in the description of development (DL 4-6)
- Grey-tiled roofs elsewhere on Wickenden Road were sporadic, textured, not in the immediate context and, the Council said, without planning permission (DL 11)
- The appellant argued the existing roof was in poor condition and poorly insulated; outside the scope of the appeal (DL 13)
Sources
This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.