Appeal 6002381

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted to extend current pitched roof to create 1 and 1/2 storey dwelling. Replace existing roof tiles throughout, replace existing windows, new pitched roof over current flat roof, rebuild current conservatory and construct new mono-pitch front roof, other changes to external appearance at [site address] , Cheveley, Cambridgeshire [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/00775/FUL, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans: PROPOSED GROUND FLOOR PLAN, FIRST FLOOR PLAN, ELEVATIONS AND SECTION A-A Revision A ([name] HAPNR5-25-02) and EXISTING AND PROPOSED SITE PLANS AND LOCATION PLAN Revision A ([name]. HAPNR5-25-03).

Prior to any above ground construction of the approved extension, a scheme of biodiversity improvements shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The biodiversity improvements shall be installed prior to the first occupation of the hereby approved development and thereafter, maintained in perpetuity.

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.

[name] acknowledge the error in the Council’s reference to No. [address], it was nevertheless clear from both the officer report and the decision notice that the assessment related to the bungalow adjoining the plot of [site address] (No 5), namely [address] (No 6), and I have therefore been able to proceed with my assessment on that correct basis.

The main issues of the appeal are the effect of the proposal on; • the character and appearance of the area; and • the living conditions of the occupiers of No 6 with particular regard to outlook.

The appeal concerns a detached bungalow positioned well back from [address], within the settlement of Cheveley. The surrounding area is predominantly residential, characterised by a varied mix of dwelling types, scales and architectural forms and designs. Properties adjoin the appeal site to the east, south and west. Adjacent to the plot of No 5 is No 6, a detached bungalow set within a wrap-around garden that narrows toward the rear but is notably more generous at the front. No [address] (No 7) to the other side comprises a larger two-storey dwelling.

The Council have stated that they accept the principle of an additional storey, and although the proposal seeks to extend the dwelling in a generally coherent manner, certain elements of the design, particularly the conflicting roof pitches, forms and massing to the rear, were considered to result in harm to the character of the area. I note the Council’s view that the design concerns could be resolved through relatively small amendments.

However, in my view, the proposal, as shown on the plans, is not an overly complex, or a contrived form. The massing is acceptable and the stepped roof that accommodates the rear balcony does not introduce a level of bulk that would fundamentally undermine the character of the dwelling or the wider area.

While aligning the north‐western side elevation to a single building line would improve the scheme, the visibility of this elevation from the public realm is limited. Therefore, the misalignment would have little perceptible effect on the street scene. I find the roof pitches, forms, bulk and massing of the scheme acceptable. Even if the boundary hedging were removed and the elevation became more visible from neighbouring No 7, as a matter of judgement, the side elevation would not appear harmful to the character and appearance of the area.

I conclude, the proposal would have an acceptable effect, and therefore not be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. Therefore the proposal accords with policies ENV 1 and ENV 2 of the East Cambridgeshire Local Plan (2015) (as amended 2023) (LP) and policy CHEV7 of Cheveley Neighbourhood Plan (2024) (NP) which require high quality development in all situations and that proposal’s recognise and address key features and characteristics, reflecting local distinctiveness, and the special qualities of the area. It would also be compliant with Chapter 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which has similar objectives.

No 6 benefits from a wraparound garden, with the narrower rear section running alongside the appeal site, forming the part of that plot most directly affected by the proposed development. The proposal would not bring the building any closer to the boundary with No 6. The extension would remain set in from the shared boundary, the eaves height change would be modest, and the pitch of the new higher roof would slope away from No 6. A significant proportion of the private garden space would retain a good degree of outlook as a whole.

Taken together, the degree of separation from the boundary, the orientation of the roof and the garden shape and remaining outlook present at No 6 would ensure that an acceptable level of outlook is retained for No. 6.

I conclude, the proposal would maintain satisfactory living conditions for the occupiers of No 6, with particular regard to outlook. Therefore, the proposal accords with policies ENV 2 of the LP and policy CHEV 7 of the NP which sets out that it will support proposals where they avoid unacceptable impacts on the amenity of occupants of neighbouring and nearby properties, ensuring that occupiers enjoy high standards of amenity.

Although the proposal would be visible from No 7, the degree of separation between that property and No 5 is sufficient to ensure that the development would not appear overbearing. Nor would it result in overlooking, given both the distance involved and the oblique relationship between the two dwellings.

The Tree Officer provided a comment on the original application, highlighting the trees and hedges located on 3rd party land adjacent the areas of development and suggested an informative advising the appellant to refer to BS5837:2012 in relation to design, demolition and construction. However, given the distances I observed on site and likely root protection areas, I agree with the Council’s stance, that a condition would be unnecessary.

Although no objection is raised in respect of the limited intervisibility between the appeal site and [address] as a [name] listed building, I am required under section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the listed building or its setting. [address] is a historic cottage which derives its special architectural historic interest and significance from its age, construction using historic building techniques, and its architectural and aesthetic values as a simple attractive traditional rural building. Its setting includes historic thoroughfares, and the arrangement of village buildings along them within its village setting, which contribute to its significance. Given its form, scale, position, intervening buildings and spaces, and distance, the proposal would not intrude upon the setting or diminish its contribution significance, and I therefore conclude the appeal scheme would preserve the setting and significance of [address].

In addition to the standard three-year period implementation condition, which is a statutory requirement, it is necessary, in the interest of certainty, to define the plans with which the appeal scheme should accord. In line with policy CHEV14 of the Cheveley Neighbourhood Plan (2024), a condition requiring biodiversity net gain to be achieved on site is necessary.

I consider the proposed development is compliant with the development plan read as a whole, and there are no considerations advanced that indicate the scheme should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed.

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