Appeal 3315095
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 alteration to the existing dwelling.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the development upon the character and appearance of the host property and the area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal site is located in a residential area comprised in the main of brick built detached and semi-detached houses with double pitched roofs and chimneys and with front and rear amenity spaces. There is a preponderance of hedging abutting the accesses and enclosing the front spaces which, in the main, permit off road parking. The hedging plus other trees and planting in the private gardens give the area an attractive, open landscaped appearance. These features add positively and distinctively to the character and appearance of the area.
No. [site address] is one of a pair of semi-detached dwellings which display the above characteristics. It is a corner plot with a sizable side and rear garden enclosed by fencing. Neither it nor the adjoining property appear to have any significant additions or alterations when viewed from the front. The front elevations are clearly visible from the road where the pair of semi-detached houses appear as symmetrical and balanced in design terms.
The proposed development is for a two-storey extension to the side of the dwelling which would be comparable in its length to that of the existing dwelling. It would extend beyond the rear elevation and would join an Appeal Ref: APP/W0530/D/23/3315095 existing single storey addition with a mono pitch roof. The rear facing extension would have a double pitched gable with a large patio-type ground floor window. In addition, the development would include a single-story timber pergola to the side of the proposed two-storey extension.
The extension would be set back slightly from the existing front elevation of the property and would also be set down somewhat from the existing ridge line. These would help, to a minor extent, to create an extension which would be subordinate in scale to the host property. However, the extension when considered as a whole, by its size and extent would compete unacceptably with and dominate the existing dwelling. Moreover, it would significantly and adversely affect the current, balanced and symmetrical appearance of the pair of semi-detached houses, thereby representing poor design and causing harm to the character and appearance of the locality.
Therefore, I conclude that the proposed development would not accord with policies S/2 (b and d), HQ/1 and NH/14 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018, paragraphs 126, 130 and 134 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2021, or with the Council’s District Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document 2010, all of which require development to be of good design in sympathy with the character and appearance of the area.
Section 05
Conclusion
For the reasons outlined 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 3544No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 4 April 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 24 March 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3315095
- Application reference
- 22/04541/HFUL
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- South Cambridgeshire District Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000012
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
- Planning Appeals - Full
- 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
- 99 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
- 20 January 2023
- Valid date
- 20 January 2023
- Start date
- 21 February 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 9 December 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 4 April 2023
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
- 30822
- 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