Appeal 6003036

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for: Part two storey and part single storey rear extension. Roof extension with rear dormer and 2 skylights to the front elevation at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/03660/HFUL, and the plans submitted with it, 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 drawing Nos: 7373381-5 ([name]) and 7373379-7. ([name]).

The external materials of the extensions hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building/dwelling.

The description of development in the header is taken from the decision notice. This differs from that detailed on the appeal form and this change was agreed by both parties during the planning application process.

Planning permission was granted in July 2025 under Ref: 25/01670/HFUL for a development on the site that is the same as the scheme now before me, with the exception that it did not include the proposed outrigger dormer. That permission remains extant and is referred to by the appellant as the fallback position.

The main issues in this appeal are • the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host building; and • whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the [address] Conservation Area (the CA).

The appeal property is a mid‐terrace, two‐storey dwelling dating from the late nineteenth century. The main part of the house has a dual‐pitched roof with a ridge running parallel to the road. To the rear is a two‐storey, pitched‐roof return extension, sharing its ridge with the neighbouring property along the boundary and running at right angles to the main roof ridge. A small single‐storey projection extends from the rear of this return.

The rear of the appeal property, in common with adjacent properties, comprises a small garden area. There is a strong sense of enclosure in this location, largely created by a substantial brick wall approximately 4 metres in height at the rear of the gardens. As a result, close views of the roofscape of the appeal property from surrounding areas are limited. Along the terrace there are numerous examples of rear and dormer extensions of differing design resulting in a non-uniform character and appearance which differs markedly from the front of the terrace.

The appeal site is located within a CA that encompasses a wide urban area in central Cambridge. The significance of the CA appears to derive, at least in part, from the historic and aesthetic interest of its buildings, many of which retain a simple, traditional style and appearance, with rows of properties exhibiting a marked degree of uniformity. The appeal property is similar in age, form and style to other dwellings along [address] and, in these respects, makes a positive contribution to the character and qualities of the CA in this location.

Notwithstanding that an extant planning permission under Ref: 25/01670/HFUL exists for the proposed skylights on the front roof elevation and for the rear dormer on the main roof and rear extension, excluding the proposed outrigger, these elements are similar to features that have been added to nearby dwellings including the dwelling immediately adjacent at No 53 without detriment to the appearance of the street scene. As such, these elements of the proposal would cause no harm to the appeal property or to the CA.

The proposed outrigger dormer would be set back from the rear parapet of the extension, which would serve to shield it from view within the immediate vicinity of the dwelling to a significant degree and minimise its visual impact. Wider views would be seen in the context of the large wall that screens the rear of [address] in this location to a considerable extent. My attention has also been drawn to the variety of additions at rooftop level in the surrounding area of the terrace in terms of their varied design and appearance when viewed from longer distances beyond the wall. In this context, the proposed outrigger addition would not be particularly visually prominent.

I have also been directed to two nearby properties that have similar rear outrigger dormers to the proposal, these are at [address] and [address]. Both are within approximately 300 metres of the appeal site, and one is located on the same street. While the Council has asserted, without providing reasoned justification, that these locations are in a different context to the appeal site, I am satisfied that they represent relevant examples. This is due to their proximity, the comparable scale of the properties they relate to, their relationship with surrounding development, and the fact that they are all located within the same CA. As such, the proposed outrigger would not be an entirely new feature in the area.

While these examples are not located within the immediate vicinity of the appeal site, the visual effect of the outrigger would be localised and would not be readily perceived in the context of nearby properties due to its set back. The regular pattern of roof forms to the rear of houses along [address] is this location is already disrupted to a significant degree. Consequently, the proposal would not meaningfully diminish the appeal property’s character and appearance and contribution to the significance of the Conservation Area.

[name] have been directed to the Cambridge Local Plan 2018 (the Local Plan) - [name] - [name], I have not been provided with a compelling reasoning by the Council as to why the proposal is at odds with this design guidance and I do not find conflict in this regard.

For these reasons, I conclude that the development would cause no detriment to the character or appearance of the host property. I also conclude that it would not harm, and would therefore preserve, the character and appearance of the CA. In these respects, the proposal would accord with Policies 58 and 61 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2018, which, among other things, seek to ensure that proposals are sympathetic to the existing building and surrounding area, that alterations to roofs complement the built form, and that development preserves or enhances the significance of heritage assets, including conservation areas. I also find no conflict with paragraphs 212 and 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).

In reaching my decision, I have had regard to the representations made by interested parties at the planning application stage concerning the impact of the development on the living conditions of surrounding occupiers. Representations relating to privacy and loss of light have been noted. However, I have not been presented with evidence that would lead me to a different conclusion from that reached by the Council, namely that the proposal would not result in harm in respect of these matters that would warrant withholding planning permission.

For clarity, a condition is required to specify the timescale for the implementation of the permission, and a further condition is necessary to identify the approved drawings. I have also attached a condition relating to materials so that they match the existing fabric of the host building. The requirement for this responds to the appeal sites location within a CA and was referenced in the Council’s Officer report.

For the reasons set out above, the appeal is allowed.