Appeal 3357093

The appeal is dismissed.

There is one main issue which is the effect of the proposed side extension on the character and appearance of the street scene of [address].

The Council raises no objection, subject to conditions, to the proposed dropped kerb or to the demolition of the existing garage or the proposed alterations to rooflights and doors. I agree these would be acceptable. I shall therefore restrict my further consideration to the proposed extension.

The appeal dwelling is a semi-detached house in a residential street of similar dwellings. The semi-detached pairs were originally separated by driveways to the side, contributing to the open, spacious, character of the street. In a number of cases, side extensions have been built into the gaps at both ground and first floor. Where first floor extensions have been built, the gap is noticeably narrowed and thus more fragile but nevertheless a separation is maintained between the pairs of dwellings and openness is preserved. A noticeable gap has been preserved at first floor in all the cases I saw.

The appeal dwelling has a single storey garage to the side and its non-attached neighbour No 21 has a two storey extension up to the shared boundary. There thus remains a gap of some 2.6m at first floor between the two dwellings.

The proposed extension would replace the existing garage and therefore the ground floor element, including the extension to the front porch, would preserve the existing gap.

However, at first floor the proposed extension, notwithstanding its set back by over 2m from the front elevation and its set down roof, would close the gap between the dwellings. I accept that when approaching along the street, the neighbouring pairs of dwellings would not appear as a terrace. Nevertheless, the loss of openness between the dwellings would fail to respect the space between buildings, which in [address] makes a valuable contribution to the character of the street. This would conflict with Policy 58 of the Cambridge Local Plan (LP), 2018, which expects extensions to existing buildings to respect the space between buildings where this contributes to the character of an area.

Notwithstanding that, in view of the position of the extension set well back from the front elevation, I find the proposed contrasting materials and the lack of window in the front elevation acceptable, this would not outweigh the identified harm to the character and appearance of the area.

It is therefore concluded on the main issue that the proposed side extension would have a materially detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the street scene of [address]. In consequence, it would conflict with [name] 55, 56 and 58. Taken together and amongst other things these expect new development, including extensions, to identify and respond positively to existing features such that they: use appropriate local characteristics to help inform siting and massing; successfully integrate buildings and spaces between them; ensure that proposals are sympathetic to the existing building and surrounding area; and, in particular, respect the space between buildings where this contributes to the character of an area.

However, I find no conflict with [name] 57 and 59 which refer to new buildings and landscaping in the context of the public realm respectively.

For the reasons set out above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.