Click here to see map for location of Friar’s Cottage
26/01168/FLH Roof extension including remodelling and the addition of dormers and skylights to the front and rear.
This application is to create living space in the loft by raising the roof ridge and remodelling the roof to destroy the existing asymmetric design, causing what the Society believes to be unacceptable harm to the Conservation Area in which the property sits.
Accordingly, the Society commented on the EEBC Planning website as below:-
“I am writing on behalf of the Epsom Civic Society.
The ECS raises objections to the current proposals.
The NPPF 2026 provides a framework for assessing proposals that may impact on heritage assets. At HE4 (Securing the conservation of heritage assets) it states: Heritage assets, as an irreplaceable resource, should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance. To achieve this, development proposals which would affect the significance of heritage assets, including any contribution made by their setting should … avoid (or if that is not possible, minimise) harm to the significance of heritage assets, and instead conserve this significance.
Core Strategy policy CS5 states that the Council will protect and seek to enhance the Borough’s heritage assets including historic buildings, conservation areas, archaeological remains, ancient monuments, parks and gardens of historic interest, and other areas of special character. The settings of these assets will be protected and enhanced.
Adopted Development Management policies provide a more detailed framework for assessing the design of development proposals including house extensions and development within conservation areas.
Policy DM8 Heritage Assets states “We will resist the loss of our Heritage Assets and every opportunity to conserve and enhance them should be taken by new development”. The design objectives set out in Policy DM9 Townscape Character and Local Distinctiveness states that “We will use the Conservation Area Appraisals and Environmental Character Study to guide the assessment of development proposals”, and Policy DM 10 Design Requirements for New Developments (including House Extensions) which states that the most essential elements identified as contributing to the character and local distinctiveness of a street or area should be respected, maintained or enhanced.
The Conservation Area (CA) benefits from a character assessment which is supplemented by a townscape appraisal map.
The character assessment highlights development and alterations to buildings that have marred the character of the conservation area including large extensions dormers and the loss of original windows. Notwithstanding the protection afforded to statutorily listed buildings, the character assessment identified unsympathetic alterations and oversize extensions to unlisted cottages and houses to be one of the most important “Issues” which needed addressing. The value that the Council has placed on sustaining the character of the conservation area is underscored by the Article 4 Direction and the character assessment recommends that the Borough Council monitors the quality of applications for change within the conservation area and ensures that only applications of the highest quality are approved.
It is considered that Friar’s Cottage occupies an important location in the context of the Conservation Area, being set back but highly visible from a stretch of West Hill that may reasonably be viewed as a green gateway into Epsom when approaching the town centre from the west. The orientation of Friar’s Cottage relative to West Hill along with the space between it and its neighbour to the south reveals the flank elevation. Its location warrants careful attention be given to the scale and design of any alterations and extensions.
The asymmetrical design and massing of Friar’s Cottage captures a strong mix of rustic or vernacular elements characteristic of many individual detached dwellings constructed in the late C19th and early C20th in Surrey the design of which sought to capture what may be described as a Surrey Style.
A hipped roof to the left side of the street elevation contrasts with a gable to the right side. Asymmetry is reinforced by both a long cat-slide roof descending from the eaves to a ground floor addition on the right side and visible from the street, while a small projecting dormer on the opposite end of the rear elevation breaches the eaves line around which the roof slope continues.
A bold and characterful chimney stack adds interest to the south east facing flank elevation where the existing ridge line enables the stack to gain prominence in the overall composition of the elevation.
A small gable ended roof caps the middle first floor window on the front elevation where the eaves sit snugly over first floor accommodation. The roof slope of the gable matches the roof slope of both the front porch and the hipped roof. Overall, a compact and pleasing composition is created with roof slopes intimately related to one another at the front while displaying a more rustic approach to the rear.
The proposals would introduce a number of changes to the overall design of the dwelling which would erode the character and distinctiveness of the dwelling and in turn the character and appearance of the conservation area.
The raised ridge enables the introduction of an overly large dormer on the front elevation with windows the size of which would dominate and compete with existing first floor windows.
Alterations to the south east elevation would result in the loss of the characterful cat-slide roof and would diminish the prominence of the chimney stack which is visible from the street.
The gable end alteration to the roof on the northwest facing elevation would further erode the distinct asymmetry of the dwelling.
Further alterations in the form of a first floor and roof extensions to the rear elevation consolidate the loss of the cat-slide roof and continue to alter the dwelling in a manner considered harmful to its character introducing further oversized dormers to the rear elevation with windows that are poorly proportioned relative their size.
The Design and Access statement asserts that “The proposed loft conversion balances modern space requirements with a respectful, conservation-first approach.” This would appear to be the rationale behind the raising of the ridge to incorporate a staircase and a second floor of habitable rooms. The NPPF, Core Strategy Development Management policies or Conservation Area Character Assessment do not identify the need to deliver modern space requirements with regards to achieving suitable alterations to dwellings in conservation areas.
The Design and Access statement goes on to state that by “Incorporating advice from pre-application 25/01426/PREAPP, the architectural volume is seamlessly absorbed into the Stamford Green Conservation Area via a traditional rear mansard link, flush heritage openings, and matching plain clay tiling”. The ECS remains to be persuaded that changes to the volume are seamlessly absorbed in a manner likely to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
The ECS would query what pre-application advice has been provided.
It is considered that the proposed development by reason of overly large and poorly proportioned additions would fail to respect and would materially diminish the distinct form and character of the existing dwelling. Coupled with its location and visual prominence facing Clayfield Green, the proposals would detract from the character and appearance of this part of the Stamford Green Conservation Area. The proposals would be contrary to the requirements of HE4 of the NPPF 2026, Core Strategy policy CS5, Development Management policies DM8 and DM9 and informed by the Stamford Green Conservation Area character assessment and townscape appraisal map.
Posted: 25 October 2026 by ecs
Friar’s Cottage West Hill Epsom KT19 8JP
Click here to see map for location of Friar’s Cottage
26/01168/FLH Roof extension including remodelling and the addition of dormers and skylights to the front and rear.
This application is to create living space in the loft by raising the roof ridge and remodelling the roof to destroy the existing asymmetric design, causing what the Society believes to be unacceptable harm to the Conservation Area in which the property sits.
Accordingly, the Society commented on the EEBC Planning website as below:-
“I am writing on behalf of the Epsom Civic Society.
The ECS raises objections to the current proposals.
The NPPF 2026 provides a framework for assessing proposals that may impact on heritage assets. At HE4 (Securing the conservation of heritage assets) it states: Heritage assets, as an irreplaceable resource, should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance. To achieve this, development proposals which would affect the significance of heritage assets, including any contribution made by their setting should … avoid (or if that is not possible, minimise) harm to the significance of heritage assets, and instead conserve this significance.
Core Strategy policy CS5 states that the Council will protect and seek to enhance the Borough’s heritage assets including historic buildings, conservation areas, archaeological remains, ancient monuments, parks and gardens of historic interest, and other areas of special character. The settings of these assets will be protected and enhanced.
Adopted Development Management policies provide a more detailed framework for assessing the design of development proposals including house extensions and development within conservation areas.
Policy DM8 Heritage Assets states “We will resist the loss of our Heritage Assets and every opportunity to conserve and enhance them should be taken by new development”. The design objectives set out in Policy DM9 Townscape Character and Local Distinctiveness states that “We will use the Conservation Area Appraisals and Environmental Character Study to guide the assessment of development proposals”, and Policy DM 10 Design Requirements for New Developments (including House Extensions) which states that the most essential elements identified as contributing to the character and local distinctiveness of a street or area should be respected, maintained or enhanced.
The Conservation Area (CA) benefits from a character assessment which is supplemented by a townscape appraisal map.
The character assessment highlights development and alterations to buildings that have marred the character of the conservation area including large extensions dormers and the loss of original windows. Notwithstanding the protection afforded to statutorily listed buildings, the character assessment identified unsympathetic alterations and oversize extensions to unlisted cottages and houses to be one of the most important “Issues” which needed addressing. The value that the Council has placed on sustaining the character of the conservation area is underscored by the Article 4 Direction and the character assessment recommends that the Borough Council monitors the quality of applications for change within the conservation area and ensures that only applications of the highest quality are approved.It is considered that Friar’s Cottage occupies an important location in the context of the Conservation Area, being set back but highly visible from a stretch of West Hill that may reasonably be viewed as a green gateway into Epsom when approaching the town centre from the west. The orientation of Friar’s Cottage relative to West Hill along with the space between it and its neighbour to the south reveals the flank elevation. Its location warrants careful attention be given to the scale and design of any alterations and extensions.
The asymmetrical design and massing of Friar’s Cottage captures a strong mix of rustic or vernacular elements characteristic of many individual detached dwellings constructed in the late C19th and early C20th in Surrey the design of which sought to capture what may be described as a Surrey Style.
A hipped roof to the left side of the street elevation contrasts with a gable to the right side. Asymmetry is reinforced by both a long cat-slide roof descending from the eaves to a ground floor addition on the right side and visible from the street, while a small projecting dormer on the opposite end of the rear elevation breaches the eaves line around which the roof slope continues.
A bold and characterful chimney stack adds interest to the south east facing flank elevation where the existing ridge line enables the stack to gain prominence in the overall composition of the elevation.
A small gable ended roof caps the middle first floor window on the front elevation where the eaves sit snugly over first floor accommodation. The roof slope of the gable matches the roof slope of both the front porch and the hipped roof. Overall, a compact and pleasing composition is created with roof slopes intimately related to one another at the front while displaying a more rustic approach to the rear.
The proposals would introduce a number of changes to the overall design of the dwelling which would erode the character and distinctiveness of the dwelling and in turn the character and appearance of the conservation area.
The raised ridge enables the introduction of an overly large dormer on the front elevation with windows the size of which would dominate and compete with existing first floor windows.
Alterations to the south east elevation would result in the loss of the characterful cat-slide roof and would diminish the prominence of the chimney stack which is visible from the street.
The gable end alteration to the roof on the northwest facing elevation would further erode the distinct asymmetry of the dwelling.
Further alterations in the form of a first floor and roof extensions to the rear elevation consolidate the loss of the cat-slide roof and continue to alter the dwelling in a manner considered harmful to its character introducing further oversized dormers to the rear elevation with windows that are poorly proportioned relative their size.
The Design and Access statement asserts that “The proposed loft conversion balances modern space requirements with a respectful, conservation-first approach.” This would appear to be the rationale behind the raising of the ridge to incorporate a staircase and a second floor of habitable rooms. The NPPF, Core Strategy Development Management policies or Conservation Area Character Assessment do not identify the need to deliver modern space requirements with regards to achieving suitable alterations to dwellings in conservation areas.
The Design and Access statement goes on to state that by “Incorporating advice from pre-application 25/01426/PREAPP, the architectural volume is seamlessly absorbed into the Stamford Green Conservation Area via a traditional rear mansard link, flush heritage openings, and matching plain clay tiling”. The ECS remains to be persuaded that changes to the volume are seamlessly absorbed in a manner likely to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
The ECS would query what pre-application advice has been provided.
It is considered that the proposed development by reason of overly large and poorly proportioned additions would fail to respect and would materially diminish the distinct form and character of the existing dwelling. Coupled with its location and visual prominence facing Clayfield Green, the proposals would detract from the character and appearance of this part of the Stamford Green Conservation Area. The proposals would be contrary to the requirements of HE4 of the NPPF 2026, Core Strategy policy CS5, Development Management policies DM8 and DM9 and informed by the Stamford Green Conservation Area character assessment and townscape appraisal map.
Category: Heritage, Planning, Planning Applications
Recent Posts
Categories