Kingston bricks appeal wins lawful certificate

The Kingston bricks appeal has overturned a refusal to certify the materials used for a house extension in a conservation area. An Inspector found that differences between newer and weathered brickwork did not mean the development breached its planning permission.

The decision, dated 7th October 2026, concerns 20 Orchard Road, Kingston upon Thames. It offers a practical lesson for homeowners, conservation officers and consultants faced with conditions requiring new materials to match an existing building.

The appeal succeeded on the balance of probabilities, but the homeowner did not secure an award of costs. Winning a lawful development certificate appeal, the separate decision illustrates, does not automatically prove the council behaved unreasonably.

Kingston bricks appeal: the permission and the dispute

The two-storey semi-detached house occupies a corner plot at Orchard Road and Grange Road. It is locally listed and stands within the Fairfield and Knights Conservation Area, making the treatment of its external elevations an important part of the planning context.

Permission granted by the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames on 22nd June 2022, reference 22/00997/HOU, authorised demolition of a previous rear extension and outbuilding and a series of new extensions and alterations. The wider scheme also included rooflights, cycle storage and changes to the driveway and gate.

Condition 3 required the development to use materials specified on the approved plans and application form, unless the council agreed otherwise in writing. Those approved documents indicated that the new exposed brickwork would match the existing building; they did not identify a particular proprietary brick or require an exact numerical colour match.

Council officers, including conservation advisers, considered the new brickwork visibly different from the original elevations. The owner argued that the bricks matched the building and that age, cleaning and weathering explained much of the variation.

Rather than waiting for further enforcement action, the applicant sought a certificate under section 191 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to establish that the completed operation complied with the materials condition. The council refused the certificate, leading to the section 195 appeal.

How the Inspector assessed colour, texture and age

Inspector A U Ghafoor examined the relationship between the extension and the host building rather than treating every visual difference as a breach. The decision identifies yellow London Stock Brick on the front elevation and mixed stock brick on the side.

The front had apparently been cleaned after years of weathering, exposing its underlying colour and texture. The new extensions were also built in yellow brick. Some difference in brick size was apparent, and the relatively prominent corner location made the new work noticeable.

Those differences were not determinative. The Inspector considered the new colour and texture closely comparable to those already present. Flemish bond brickwork and lime mortar helped the extensions integrate with the original building, while further weathering was expected.

Importantly, the bricks used on the extension could also be found within the wider street and conservation area. That wider context was relevant to the factual assessment, but did not displace the actual wording of the permission.

The Inspector concluded that the extensions met conditions 1 and 3. The Kingston bricks appeal therefore succeeded on the evidence available, applying the balance of probabilities rather than demanding a perfect physical identity between new and decades-old materials.

Why the lawful development certificate was issued

A section 191 certificate answers a question of lawfulness for an existing use or operation, not whether officers would choose the same design today. Here the question was whether the completed brickwork complied with a condition imposed on an extant planning permission.

The Inspector issued a certificate confirming that, on 11th April 2024, the brick materials on the extensions complied with condition 3 of the 2022 permission. The certificate is limited to the described existing operation and the land identified in the attached plan.

That limitation matters. It does not grant a fresh unrestricted permission for different bricks, additional extensions or another breach. Nor does it remove any other continuing conditions on the property.

For other Kingston bricks appeal disputes, the practical starting point is an exact copy of the operative permission, all drawings and the application material expressly incorporated by condition. An officer’s preferred material is not necessarily the legally required material.

The separate costs decision went the other way

The appellant also sought costs against Kingston Council. Although the substantive appeal succeeded, the same Inspector refused the costs application in a separate decision dated 7th October.

The council had visited during construction and expressed concern that the new bricks failed to match. The owner had argued that the variation reflected new bricks beside older, weathered ones. The Inspector regarded this as a genuine difference of opinion, with the council advancing a sufficiently reasoned case.

Costs require unreasonable behaviour which causes unnecessary or wasted appeal expense. A decision being overturned, by itself, is not enough. The Inspector found neither procedural nor substantive unreasonableness sufficient to support an award.

This distinction is especially relevant where consultants advise an applicant that a strong certificate appeal will necessarily recover professional fees. The merits of lawfulness and the merits of a costs application should be evaluated separately and supported by different evidence.

What owners and consultants should learn

First, describe matching requirements precisely at application stage. Where the existing building contains more than one brick type, identify which elevation and which characteristics the proposed materials are intended to match.

Second, retain dated photographs, sample approvals, delivery records and material specifications. In a retrospective dispute, the case often turns on what was authorised and what was actually built, not merely how two photographs look under different lighting.

Third, explain the effect of natural weathering and any cleaning undertaken to the original façade. Materials can reasonably match in colour, texture and construction method without appearing identical immediately after laying.

Fourth, choose the correct procedure. An existing-operation section 191 application differs from a proposed-operation section 192 application. The Inspector’s certificate addressed compliance with the approved condition as at the date stated, not a hypothetical future design.

Finally, consider conservation sensitivity without conflating it with the legal test. Conservation status was important background in the Kingston bricks appeal, but the crucial conclusion was that the approved materials condition had been met on the evidence.

For more on the relevant procedure, see Planning Geek’s lawful development certificate appeal guide and guidance on recovering appeal costs.

Read the appeal and costs decisions

The main decision is appeal APP/Z5630/X/25/3359471, issued on 7th October 2026. The Appealbase decision record contains the text and linked costs information.

The decision is a Planning Inspectorate appeal, not a court judgment creating binding precedent. It is persuasive practical evidence of how one Inspector applied the actual condition wording to a particular building and set of materials.