Appeal 3359828

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed extensions on: • The character and appearance of the local area and host dwelling; and • the living conditions of the occupants of [address] (No.11a), with particular reference to outlook.

The site is on the corner of [address] and [address], with a house of similar design on the opposite side of the road. [address] and [address] have a relatively strong building line made up predominantly of semi-detached dwellings. The dwellings of [address] are set back behind a spacious green verge with mature tree planting.

It is proposed to extend the dwelling with a single storey element to the south and a two-storey element to the east. Both extensions would protrude beyond the principal elevation of the dwelling, facing onto [address].

The proposed two storey front projecting extension would substantially break the building line of [address], as well as reducing the sense of openness that defines the street scene of this road. In addition, this extension would not architecturally complement the dwelling opposite, which as a pair form a pleasant gateway entrance into [address]. It is for these reasons that this element of the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the local area.

The proposed single storey extension’s scale combined with its complex design would harm the character and appearance of the street scene, specifically by the element that projects forward towards [address]. The overall scale of the proposed extensions towards [address] would significantly obscure the original dwelling to the detriment of its overall architectural quality.

The proposal would therefore significantly harm both the character and appearance of the local area and the host dwelling. The proposal does not comply with Policies 55 and 58 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2018 (Local Plan), which seek to create high quality distinctive places, ensure extensions are sympathetic to the existing building and local area and respect the spaces between buildings.

No.[address] forms the other half of the semi-detached property. The boundary between the two properties is currently a small amount of brick wall, with the remainder being defined by a hedgerow. The proposed side extension would extend approximately two thirds of the way down No.11a’s rear garden and from my site visit would appear to be located adjacent to 11a’s ground floor kitchen window and door.

There is no evidence before me to confirm that the window and door of No.11a which are closest to the shared boundary serve a habitable room. Based on everything I have read and seen, they do not appear to serve a habitable room. However, the proposed side extension would create a substantial amount of brickwork along the common boundary, which combined with the neighbour’s cycle store to the rear of No.11a would significantly restrict outlook from the rear garden. This on account of the extent to which the side extension, by virtue of the parapet’s height and length on the common boundary would enclose that space, which would cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of No.11a when seeking to enjoy their garden.

The proposal would significantly enclose the rear garden of No.11a, which provides a valuable private outside space to the occupiers of that property. This would unduly restrict the outlook enjoyed by those occupiers and cause unacceptable harm to their living conditions. Therefore, the proposal would not comply with Policy 58 of the Local Plan, which seeks to protect residents from visually dominant developments.

It is noted on the drawings that the side extension element is annotated to include a dependant’s bedroom. However, given that there is no further explanatory information in this regard, this is a neutral factor in my determination of this appeal.

It was noted on the site visit that there was a construction site opposite [address], though I do not have knowledge of the final design of this development. Based on my observations during my site visit, alongside the information submitted it does not affect my findings on the main issues covered above.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. The appeal should therefore be dismissed.