Appeal 3297065
Public case and site metadata stored from the official casework database, including fields that were empty in the source release.
A clearer next step
See how Inspectors approached issues like yours
Bring your planning decision into a private workspace. We separate the disputed points, then match them with source-located Inspector reasoning from similar appeals.
- See which issues the decision appears to turn on
- Compare the facts and open the full appeal records
One private comparison
How the refusal review worksOne-off service · No subscription
Similar appeals are evidence to inspect, not a prediction of your outcome.
Official decision document
The decision, section by section
5 sections
Read the development description and the Inspector’s text from the official decision PDF in source order. Source headings are retained where available. Personal and contact details are removed by an automated privacy filter; this is source material, not Rules for You analysis.
Section 01
Development description
a two storey side extension and single storey rear extension to house.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposed side extension on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal property is a two storey semi detached dwelling located within a streetscene of similar properties. Gaps between the dwellings contribute to the spacious character of the surrounding area. A number of nearby properties have been altered and extended. Where dwellings have been extended to the side elevation a gap between dwellings at first floor level is maintained and consequently throughout the street the gaps between properties are preserved.
Side extensions to the row of properties in which the appeal site is located have changed the character of the dwellings within this row somewhat. Nonetheless the properties remain distinguishable as pairs of semi detached dwellings consistent with the surrounding area and this would be lost as a result of the appeal proposal. The terraced form would be at odds with the prevailing pattern rather than architecturally completing the houses on this side of [site address] . Thus, whilst the properties within the street are not uniform in themselves, the existence of gaps at first floor level between the properties is. These gaps are not individually spacious and do not safeguard protected views. Nonetheless, they contribute to the spacious character of the area.
The neighbouring property, 5 [site address] , has been extended at two storeys to the boundary shared with the appeal property and the proposed two storey side extension would link to this extension at the site boundary. This would create a terrace with the neighbouring property and entirely close the gap between these dwellings contrary to the spacious character of the area.
A degree of subservience would be achieved through the lower ridge and eaves height of the extension, however this reduction in the ridge and eaves height would not maintain any gap between the properties. Accordingly, the appeal proposal differs from other extensions in the surrounding area which have maintained the gap between dwellings.
I consider therefore that the proposed development would adversely affect the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The appeal proposal would therefore be contrary to those aims of policies 55 and 58 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2018 that seek to ensure that development is reflective of existing building forms and are sympathetic to the surrounding area.
Section 05
Conclusion
I find that the proposal conflicts with the development plan. No material considerations have been shown to have sufficient weight to warrant a decision otherwise than in accordance with it. Therefore, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.
Planning inspector and document dates
The official casework attribution is grouped under a one-way keyed hash and shown only by its local identifier. Decision-letter dates and page references are extracted by fixed first-page rules and checked against that authoritative record.
Appeal Decision
- Extracted inspector · page 1
- Inspector attribution ID 3499No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 13 June 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 31 May 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3297065
- Application reference
- 21/05452/HFUL
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Cambridge City Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000008
Casework details
The casework, procedure, development and linking details supplied by the official record.
- Casework type
- Householder (HAS)
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development type
- Householder developments
- Appeal type reason
- 1. Refused planning permission
- Appeal reason
- Refusal
- Type detail
- Unknown
- Jurisdiction
- Transferred
- Link status
- Not Linked
Site and development
Published appeal-site measurements and planning designations, without the withheld precise location fields.
- Site area
- Not recorded
- Floor space
- 54 m²
- Number of residences
- 1
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- No
- Affects setting of a listed building
- Not recorded
- Historic building grant made
- Not recorded
- Relates to a conservation area
- Not recorded
- Flooding is an issue
- Not recorded
- Site within an AONB
- Not recorded
- Site within an SSSI
- Not recorded
Decision and dates
The published outcome and every imported case date.
- Official decision
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 14 April 2022
- Valid date
- 14 April 2022
- Start date
- 28 April 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 9 February 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 13 June 2022
Case administration
Published recovery, call-in, costs and enforcement information for this case.
- Redetermined
- No
- Bespoke
- No
- Date recovered
- Not recorded
- Date not recovered or derecovered
- Not recorded
- Call-in date
- Not recorded
- Costs applied for
- Not recorded
- Enforcement grounds count
- Not recorded
- Enforcement grounds
- Not recorded
Source and catalogue history
When this record appeared in the rolling official release and when the catalogue stored it.
- Source
- Planning Inspectorate casework database
- Source data system
- Horizon
- Dataset status
- Current release
- Catalogue record ID
- 16333
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:26
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21