Roof statues at Tower House, 15 Tower Road, Tadworth

Summary of planning committee decision

Decided by Reigate Planning Committee on 9 Sept 2026.

26/01219/HHOLDApprovedAgainst officer advice

What was proposed

The retrospective application sought to replace two redundant chimney stacks with two classical-style statues on their retained stumps.

“This is a householder planning application pursuant to retrospective planning permission for the replacement of two redundant chimney stacks with statues at the front of the property. It has been clarified during the course of the application that the demolition of the chimneystacks did not require planning permission and so the application only relates (retrospectively) to the two statues that have been installed on their stumps.”

Officer report

The site and its setting

The site contains a locally listed 1898 water tower and 1926 house within Tadworth Conservation Area, among spaced residential properties.

“The application site is occupied by a detached dwellinghouse comprising a locally listed Water Tower built in 1898 with a house added to its northwest side facing Tower Road in 1926. The site is contained within Tadworth Conservation Area. The surrounding area is characterised by a mixture of styles of residential properties which are reasonably well-spaced and the houses are set back from the road by gardens and driveways.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the statues appeared incongruous, harmed the locally listed building and conservation area, and had no outweighing public benefits.

“Officers consider the presence of the statues atop the roof of the building to appear as visually incongruous features, out of keeping with the established character of the house and surrounds, in contrast to the former chimney stacks. The development appears stylistically unrelated to the architecture of the locally listed property and the character of the conservation area.”

“The statues, by virtue of the combination of the design and siting on the roof, result in a visually incongruous form of development, harmful to and out of character with the appearance of the existing building, the setting of the locally listed building, and detract from the significance and special interest of this part of the Tadworth Conservation Area. There are no known public benefits that would outweigh the harm caused.”

Officer report

The conservation view

The Conservation Officer said the chimneystacks were important features, while acknowledging differing views about whether the statues suited the unusual building.

“The house is in the arts and crafts style and the chimneystacks formed an important part of the character and composition of the house and chimneystacks are an important feature of the Conservation Area and should be retained. The chimneystacks should be reinstated if these works are controlled as they were large and important features of the house and Conservation Area.”

“Opinions vary on the impact of the statues. The presence of the statues on the roof is odd, particularly close up or when viewed from neighbouring properties. They would also be clearly be inappropriate on an ordinary house in the Conservation Area but within the idiosyncratic character of the water tower this is less clear.”

Officer report

What people said

Seven representations were received: two supported the proposal and five objected over conservation, character, heritage, design, private views and need.

“Letters were sent to neighbouring properties on 04 August 2026, and a Site Notice was posted on 10 August 2026. Seven representations have been received during the course of the application. Two representations are in support of the application by reason of visual amenity benefits. Five representations object to the planning application, by reason of the following matters.”

“Harm to listed building 3 See paragraph 6.6 Poor design 2 See paragraphs 6.2 – 6.12 Loss of private view 2 See paragraph 6.14 No need for the development 1 Not a material planning consideration.”

Officer report

What members debated

Members generally agreed the statues referenced the water tower and were acceptable because they were not prominent and no more harmful than the empty plinth.

“26/01219/HHOLD - TOWER HOUSE, 15 TOWER ROAD, TADWORTH The Committee considered a retrospective application at Tower House, 15 Tower Road, Tadworth to replace two redundant brick chimney stacks (part demolition) and replace with statues. As amended on 17/08/2026.”

“A member stated that the statues referenced the water tower situated to the rear of the property. This was generally agreed by other members who felt that the statues were acceptable as a result of this and no more harmful that the empty chimney plinth, especially given they were not prominently visible. There had been 5 representations received siting harm to the conservation area and 3 representations in support.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee granted planning permission subject to conditions, finding no material harm to the area or heritage assets and no public-interest reason to refuse.

“The following reason for approval was proposed by Councillor Torra and seconded by Councillor Harp, whereupon the Committee voted.”

“The development hereby permitted has been assessed against development plan policies DES1 and NHE9 and material considerations, including third party representations. It has been concluded that the development is not considered to be harmful to the character of the area or the designated and non-designated heritage assets and causes no other material harm.”

Minutes

The members' reasons

“This was generally agreed by other members who felt that the statues were acceptable as a result of this and no more harmful that the empty chimney plinth, especially given they were not prominently visible.”

Minutes

Source: the council's minutes, quoted word for word.

Sources

  • Reigate Planning Committee minutes, 9 September 2026
  • Agenda and papers (council website)

Source: Plota analysis of Reigate's committee minutes and officer report. Quotations are the council's own words; headings and summaries are Plota's.

Committee decisions and nationwide planning applications, in one API

The Plota API returns planning applications from every council we cover, each with its decision, whether a committee or officers decided it, and the committee date. Build it into your own tools.

See the API →

At the meeting

Council
Reigate
Date
Wednesday 9 September 2026
Recommendation
Officers recommended refusal
Committee decided
Approved, against officer advice
Minutes
The council's minutes
Meeting
Agenda and papers (council website)

This committee's year

26 decisions in the 12 months to this meeting, 3 against officer advice.

Source: Plota analysis of the committee's minutes.

Every decision by this council's committees →