Town Planner Pro
Free trial
Search appeal decisions

Planning appeal decision

Dismissed19 January 20263364217

Redhill Railway Station, Princess Way, Redhill, Surrey, RH1 1RB

Planning appeal 3364217 at Redhill Railway Station, Princess Way, Redhill, Surrey, RH1 1RB (Reigate and Banstead Borough Council) was dismissed on 19 January 2026 by Inspector Gilbert J, following an inquiry. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

phased redevelopment of Site A comprising up to 255 residential dwellings (Class C3 use) in two buildings ranging from 10-15 storeys and 7-14 storeys, associated car parking; cycle parking; flexible Class E uses at ground floor, partial demolition, refurbis hment and extension to the existing Site A station entrance building with concourse. Demolition of vacant buildings associated with station on Site B. Replacement surface station car and cycle parking and taxi drop off on Site B with a refurbished and extended Site B station entrance. Together with new public realm, hard and soft landscaping improvements, new access and servicing arrangements, plant, substation and associated works across Site A and Site B

Authority
Reigate and Banstead Borough Council
Appeal type
major · Planning Appeal
Procedure
Inquiry
Development
residential · Major dwellings
Inspector
Gilbert J
Postcode
RH1 1QA

Main issues, as the Inspector framed them

  • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area
  • the effect of the proposal on the significance of the designated heritage assets of Gatton, Linkfield Street, Redstone Hill, Redhill, and Warwick Road Conservation Areas, the Grade II listed buildings at the Baptist Chapel, Station Road, and Gatton Hall, the Grade II listed Lower Gatton Park Registered Park and Garden, and the non-designated heritage asset of the Central Platform, Redhill Station
  • the effect of the proposal on highway and pedestrian safety, including parking
  • the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers at Quadrant House, with particular regard to daylight and sunlight
  • whether any harm identified, including conflict with the development plan, would be outweighed by other considerations

What decided it

The very substantial harm to the character and appearance of the area caused by the height, scale and design of the proposal was not outweighed by the benefits, even applying the tilted balance under NPPF paragraph 11(d).

the substantial benefit of 255 homes together with brownfield reuse, economic and other benefits were outweighed, when combined with heritage, highway/pedestrian safety and living-conditions harms, by the very substantial harm to character and appearance, such that the adverse impacts of granting permission significantly and demonstrably outweighed the benefits under NPPF paragraph 11(d)(ii)

What the Inspector cited

Development plan policies
CS1CS2CS4CS6CS8CS10CS11CS12CS13CS14CS17DES1DES2DES4DES5DES6DES7NHE1NHE2NHE9TAP1CCF1MLS1INF1
National Planning Policy Framework
Paragraph 11Paragraph 34Paragraph 58Paragraph 62Paragraph 78Paragraph 85Paragraph 90Paragraph 96Paragraph 116Paragraph 117Paragraph 125Paragraph 129Paragraph 130Paragraph 131Paragraph 135Paragraph 139Paragraph 146Paragraph 187Paragraph 212Paragraph 213Paragraph 215Paragraph 216Paragraph 232
Judgments
Pagham Parish Council v Arun District Council [2019] EWHC 1721 (Admin); Jones v Mordue [2015] EWCA Civ 1243; Pugh v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and others [2015] EWHC 3 (Admin); Barnwell Manor Wind Energy Limited v East Northamptonshire District Council and others [2014] EWCA Civ 137; Safe Rottingdean Ltd v Brighton and Hove City Council and others [2019] EWHC 2632 (Admin); R(Buckley) v. Bath & North East Somerset Council [2018] EWHC 1551 (Admin); R(Baker) v. SSCLG [2008] EWCA Civ 141; R (Isaacs) v SSCLG [2009] EWHC 557 (Admin); R(Harris) v. Haringey LBC [2011] PTSR 931; R(Friends of the Earth) v. Secretary of State for Transport [2021] PTSR 190; (Bridges) v Chief Constable of South Wales Police [2020] 1 WLR 5037; R (Bracking) v SSWPY [2014] Eq LR 60; Hotak v Southwark London Borough Council [2015] UKSC 30; R (Sheakh) v Lambeth LBC [2022] EWCA 457; R (Hurley & Moore) v SSBIS [2012] EWHC 201 (Admin); Hunston Properties Ltd v St Albans DC [2013] EWCA Civ 1610; Wainhomes v SSCLG [2020] EWHC 2294 (Admin); First Secretary of State v. Sainsbury's Supermarkets [2007] EWCA Civ. 1083; Hayden-Cook v SSCLG & Guildford Borough Council [2010] EWHC 2551 (Admin)

How the Inspector dealt with each one is set out in the app, in order: the development plan, national policy, housing land supply, other considerations and the planning balance, beside the letter.

See how each was applied

The decision letter

Town Planner Pro holds this letter. The Appeals plan opens it and every other letter we hold, all of them searchable, with the main issues and what decided each case picked out. We do not show letters on the free site because they carry people’s names and addresses.

Appeals plan, £15 a month

With an account

What an account adds to this decision

108 other decided appeals within two kilometres of this site. In the app every dot opens its decision, and its letter wherever one was published, and you can draw your own site to see what has been decided around it.AllowedDismissedSplitThis decision
An appeal decision in the app, with the main issues, policies and judgments cited picked out beside the letter
Every letter, there to read. We pick out the main issues, the policies and the judgments cited, so you can work through the letter faster.
Searching the full text of appeal decision letters in the app
Search inside every letter. By words or by meaning, filtered by authority, outcome, appeal type and procedure, with every locatable decision on the map and the Inspector named on each.
Start your free trial

More decisions in Reigate and Banstead Borough Council

The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2026

  1. Notice upheld7 August 20263378370
    Land at Lower Duxhurst Farm, 15 Reigate Road, Sidlow, Reigate, Surrey, RH2 8QH
  2. Allowed22 July 20266006121
    75 Ferndale Road, Banstead Surrey, SM7 2EX
  3. Dismissed28 May 20263376752
    17 Woodmansterne Street, Woodmansterne, Banstead, Surrey, SM7 3NN
  4. Dismissed20 May 20266003710
    Southside, Sturts Lane, Walton On The Hill, Surrey, KT20 7RQ
  5. Allowed10 December 20253373644
    4 The Drive, Banstead, Surrey, SM7 1DB

The main issues, what decided it, the planning balance and the policies and judgments listed as cited are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro and are our summary, not the Inspector’s words; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.

In the app this decision sits on the map beside every appeal around it, with its letter to read and the main issues, policies and judgments cited picked out.