Appeal 6001108

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The proposed porch is shown on the plans to adjoin the proposed side extension, therefore I have considered both elements together in my recommendation below.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area and on the pair of semi-detached dwellings the appeal dwelling forms part of.

The appeal property forms one half of a semi-detached pair in a prominent position on the main route through [site address] . Although now functioning as an independent dwelling, its design and proportions continue to read visually as a large extension to [address]. This is reinforced by the set-down roof and the set-back position of the building, which allows No 3 to remain the more dominant element of the pair. The surrounding area contains a wide range of building types, scales and forms. Along the length of the street, dwellings vary considerably in height, width, roof profiles, plot arrangements and design. Building forms in the street include a large, detached house, a church, a barn-style pavilion, a bungalow and other semi-detached pairs. This diversity means there is no single prevailing form that defines the character of the area.

While the pair of dwellings is not perfectly symmetrical this does not negate the contribution that their relative scale, spacing and proportions make to the street scene. The extension would significantly increase the visual mass of the appeal property, resulting in a considerably wider and more dominant frontage. This would erode the degree of balance that exists between the properties.

The omission of any set down in ridge height and set back from the principal elevation would not overcome the above concerns. The cumulative effect of these design features, together with the proposal’s width considered cumulatively with that of the existing properties, would result in a large continuous façade. This would have a greater presence and reduce the spaciousness that currently characterises the side of the plot. Even with a gap retained and the matching materials proposed, the extension would appear substantial. Taken together, these effects would materially erode the established spatial character of the plot and would appear as an intrusive and visually unbalanced addition within the street scene.

The appellant refers to an approved two-storey side extension which has been built at [address]. However, the circumstances of that differ from the proposal before me now, due to the greater set down and set back from the host dwelling which is not present in the appeal scheme. In any event, the existence of other extensions does not justify development that would cause harm in this instance.

I noted the large, detached dwelling adjacent to No 3; however, this clearly reads as a standalone property and does not form part of the semi‐detached composition. By contrast, the appeal property and No 3 retain the clear appearance of having once been a single dwelling, with the appeal property still reading as a later extension to No. 3 due to its set‐down roof and set‐back position. The further enlargement of the appeal property would significantly increase its scale and width, unbalancing the pair and eroding this established relationship.

I conclude, the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. In that regard, it would conflict with policies ENV1 and ENV2 of East Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2015 (as amended 2023) (LP) which require that alterations to buildings ensure that the location, layout, scale, form, massing, materials and colour of buildings relate sympathetically to the surrounding area and each other, creating complementary relationships with existing development. The proposal would also conflict with paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework which requires that developments are visually attractive as a result of good architecture.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.