Skip to main content
Official casework recordAllowedCurrent release

Appeal 6005170

Public case and site metadata stored from the official casework database, including fields that were empty in the source release.

A clearer next step

See how Inspectors approached issues like yours

Bring your planning decision into a private workspace. We separate the disputed points, then match them with source-located Inspector reasoning from similar appeals.

  • See which issues the decision appears to turn on
  • Compare the facts and open the full appeal records

One private comparison

How the refusal review works

One-off service · No subscription

Similar appeals are evidence to inspect, not a prediction of your outcome.

Official decision document

The decision, section by section

5 sections

Read the development description and the Inspector’s text from the official decision PDF in source order. Source headings are retained where available. Personal and contact details are removed by an automated privacy filter; this is source material, not Rules for You analysis.

Section 01

Development description

described in the application form as a “Single-storey rear extension with formation of a rear courtyard and replacement windows and door”.

  1. Section 02

    Decision

    The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a “Single-storey rear extension with formation of a rear courtyard and replacement windows and door”, at [site address] , in accordance with the terms of the application (reference 25/04554/HFUL), subject to the conditions set out in the attached Schedule of Conditions.

  2. Section 03

    Main issues

    The first main issue to be determined in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host building and its surroundings in the [address] Conservation Area. The second is the effect of the proposed development on the residential amenities of neighbours (whether unacceptable harm would be caused by overbearing appearance or visual dominance).

  3. Section 04

    Reasons

    The appeal site is located in a central part of the City of Cambridge, in an area of closely built-up Victorian housing, with narrow streets and modest terraced houses, but with good sized gardens and some green spaces. The locality has good access to the City Centre and to other local facilities, for example in [address]. This is a very pleasant residential environment, and the site lies within the [address] Conservation Area. There is considerable pressure on parking in the surrounding streets, however.

    Number [site address] has two bedrooms on the first floor (with a bathroom opening off one of the bedrooms), and a “through” living room occupying the main part of the ground floor, with a kitchen at the rear. The house is constructed on the edge of the footpath, of brickwork under a slate roof, and it is unassuming in design and detailing, in harmony with neighbouring houses in the terrace and with the Appeal Decision: 6005170 surroundings more generally. In the ‘[address] Conservation Area Appraisal’, it is shown as a “positive unlisted building”.

    It is now proposed to construct a single-storey rear extension to create an open space at the rear of the ground floor, projecting into the back garden. The floor plan would be irregular, around a small, largely internal, rear courtyard, and it would also involve the replacement of existing windows and a door as well as the removal of an existing side window. The floor plan on the first floor would also be reconfigured, to create a new bathroom, independently accessible from the landing, and a small rear bedroom or study.

    The ‘National Planning Policy Framework’ emphasises the aim of “achieving well designed places” in the broadest sense (notably at Section 12), while making effective use of land and encouraging economic activity. It is aimed at achieving good design standards generally, by adding to the overall quality of the area and being visually attractive and sympathetic to local character and history, although it is also recognised that appropriate change may include increased densities. The achievement of good design includes protecting existing residential amenities and providing good standards of accommodation in new development.

    Policies in the Development Plan also share these basic principles. Notably, in relation to this appeal, Policies 55, 58 and 61 of the ‘Cambridge Local Plan’ (which is dated 2018) address the need to achieve good standards of design, especially in the context of the historic environment (including conservation areas). Moreover, Policy 58 is specifically concerned with “Altering and extending existing buildings” and it includes a provision that such extensions should not “unacceptably overlook, overshadow or visually dominate neighbouring properties”, among other things.

    The ‘[name] and Construction Supplementary Planning Document’ (which was adopted in January 2020) is also relevant, but it does not have the force of the statutory Development Plan.

    The proposed rear extension would project into the rear garden of the property but would not be visible from public viewpoints and would not be obtrusive in the surroundings generally. It would preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and would be acceptable in the context of planning policies that are intended to protect the historic environment.

    The new extension would create a small courtyard at the rear of the existing house, where a side gate provides pedestrian access through the adjoining garden at number 17 and, beyond that, back to [address]. This allows wheelie bins to be put out and brought in conveniently and the small new courtyard would accommodate the household bins (as shown on the submitted ground floor plan). The boundary fence on this side is less than two metres high but there is a small shed at the rear of number 17 and the proposed new extension at number 18 would not have a significant impact on the outlook or sense of enclosure for this neighbour.

    The boundary at number 19 is also defined by a low fence, for the most part. This neighbouring house has a substantial shed or outbuilding in the rear garden and a glazed side extension that is built close to the boundary immediately behind the main part of the house. This is a very narrow extension, however, with a view down the garden, past the existing outbuilding, through the rear glass door, and I Appeal Decision: 6005170 am not persuaded that the outlook would be unduly harmed or that the new extension at number 18 would be overly intrusive.

    In my view, therefore, the proposed new extension at number 18 would not cause unacceptable harm to the residential amenities of neighbours by being unduly overbearing or visually dominant, in its particular context.

    Evidently, the appeal site lies within an established urban area, which is a “sustainable” location in planning terms, and the proposed extension would be a useful addition to the accommodation at [site address] . The contribution that the appeal scheme would make to the provision of residential accommodation in the locality, even though it would be very limited, weighs in favour of the appeal. I have concluded that the project would not be in conflict with the Development Plan, in principle.

    In short, I am persuaded that the scheme before me can properly be permitted and, although I have considered all the matters that have been raised in the representations, I have found nothing to cause me to alter my decision.

    I have, however, also considered the need for conditions and I have concluded that standard conditions are necessary, to define the planning permission and to ensure that quality is maintained.

    I have also considered the additional condition that has been suggested by the Council in the usual way (without prejudice to their main arguments in the appeal), proposing that the flat roof of the new extension should be designed as a “green biodiverse roof”. The proposed single storey extension is large enough for such a condition to be necessary and reasonable, to ensure that the development will make provision for water management and contribute meaningfully to the creation of habitats and valuable areas for biodiversity. Of course, the condition must also prevent the use of the flat roof as a terrace or sitting out area, since that would intrude on neighbours’ privacy. I have adopted the Council’s wording for this

  4. Section 05

    SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS

    The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

    The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved drawings: drawing number OS-01 ([name] and [name]); drawing number OS-02 ([name] and Location Plan); drawing number SP-01 (Proposed Site Plan); drawing number 100 ([name] / Elevations / Section); drawing number 200 ([name] / Elevations / Section).

    The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

    Notwithstanding the approved plans, the flat roof of the single storey rear extension hereby approved shall be a green biodiverse roof. The green biodiverse roof shall be constructed and used in accordance with the details outlined below: a) planted / seeded with a predominant mix of wildflowers which shall contain no more than a maximum of 25% sedum planted on a sub-base being no less than 80 millimetres thick; b) with suitable access for maintenance; c) not used as an amenity or sitting out space and only used for essential maintenance, repair or escape in case of emergency. The green biodiverse roof shall be implemented in full prior to the use of the extension and shall be maintained in accordance with the Green Roof Organisation's (GRO) Green Roof Code (2021) or successor documents, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Planning inspector and document dates

The official casework attribution is grouped under a one-way keyed hash and shown only by its local identifier. Decision-letter dates and page references are extracted by fixed first-page rules and checked against that authoritative record.

  • Appeal Decision

    Extracted inspector · page 1
    Inspector attribution ID 285No official casework-database value to compare
    Extracted decision date · page 1
    1 May 2026Matches the official casework database
    Extracted site visit dates
    14 April 2026 (page 1)

Reference and authority

Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.

Case reference
6005170
Application reference
25/04554/HFUL
Lead case reference
Not recorded
Planning authority
Cambridge City Council
Planning authority code
E07000008

Casework details

The casework, procedure, development and linking details supplied by the official record.

Casework type
Householder (HAS)
Procedure
Written Representations
Development type
Householder developments
Appeal type reason
Not recorded
Appeal reason
refused
Type detail
Householder
Jurisdiction
No Jurisdiction Associated
Link status
Not recorded

Site and development

Published appeal-site measurements and planning designations, without the withheld precise location fields.

Site area
0 hectares
Floor space
99 m²
Number of residences
Not recorded
Site in Green Belt
No
Agricultural holding
Not recorded
Affects setting of a listed building
Yes
Historic building grant made
Not recorded
Relates to a conservation area
Not recorded
Flooding is an issue
Not recorded
Site within an AONB
Not recorded
Site within an SSSI
Not recorded

Decision and dates

The published outcome and every imported case date.

Official decision
Allowed
Decision category
Allowed
Received date
16 February 2026
Valid date
16 February 2026
Start date
18 February 2026
Planning authority decision date
23 January 2026
Appeal decision date
1 May 2026

Case administration

Published recovery, call-in, costs and enforcement information for this case.

Redetermined
Not recorded
Bespoke
Not recorded
Date recovered
Not recorded
Date not recovered or derecovered
Not recorded
Call-in date
Not recorded
Costs applied for
No
Enforcement grounds count
Not recorded
Enforcement grounds
Not recorded

Source and catalogue history

When this record appeared in the rolling official release and when the catalogue stored it.

Source
Planning Inspectorate casework database
Source data system
Back Office
Dataset status
Current release
Catalogue record ID
88202
First seen
20 August 2026 at 14:25
Last seen
20 August 2026 at 16:29
Removed from release
Not recorded
Record created
20 August 2026 at 14:25
Record updated
24 August 2026 at 16:21