Cambridge City Council appeal evidence
Refused over character and appearance in Cambridge?
See the selected examples’ stated harms and what the allowed decision accepted.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 31 of 44
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 7
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 23
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 28
- of 31 matched records
AI-assisted. Cited sources and wording were checked before publication. Based on 5 source-linked examples shown below. Review method and limits.
Planning Data area point: Cambridge LPA (52.199386, 0.132948). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Cambridge City Council appeal findings
Cambridge extensions, roofs and street appearance
The selected examples have a different outcome mix from the matched local set. Some dismissed extracts give conclusions rather than detailed analysis.
Counted against appeals
Obtrusive additions and area harm
Matching materials did not lessen harm
The roof and extension changes were found obtrusive and discordant. Matching materials did not reduce the harm to the street.
Extension detracted from the area
The Inspector concluded that the first and second-storey extension would significantly detract from the area's character and appearance.
Tree setting formed part of the concern
The conclusion said the side extension conflicted with design policies on trees' setting and the area's character and appearance.
Helped or needed
Rear and roof extensions without harm
Surrounding character was not harmed
The Inspector concluded that the extensions would not harm the surrounding area's character and would preserve the Conservation Area's significance.
No accepted feature is identified
The extract gives the conclusion but does not identify which feature of the rear or roof extensions led to it.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify a dominant or uncharacteristic roof form?
- Does it say matching materials cannot overcome the claimed harm?
- Does it name harm to trees’ setting or a conservation area?
The allowed extract gives a conclusion rather than design detail, and the boundary-fencing example is less comparable with extensions. These decisions do not predict another result.
Appeal evidence examples
Compare allowed and dismissed appeal reasoning
Each example separates the development, the Inspector-stated issue that selected it, and the reasoning from the decision. Compare the facts as well as the outcome: these examples do not predict how a different proposal would be decided.
Allowed appeal examples
1 example
3 November 2021 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
ground, first and roof rear extensions.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area and the [address] Conservation Area (CA).
Paragraph 4 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area or the [address] CA, whose significance would be preserved. I therefore find that it accords with Policies 55, 58 and 61 and [name] ‘Roof extensions design guide’ of the Cambridge Local Plan. Amongst other aspects, these set out: that proposals should preserve or enhance the significance of the city’s heritage assets; that development will be supported where it responds positively to its context; and that extensions will be permitted where they reflect, or successfully contrast with, existing building form, are sympathetic to and respect the character and proportions of the original building and surrounding area, and are in keeping with the requirements of [name] (Roof extensions design guide) which, adopting a flexible approach, provides general design principles for common roof extensions and seeks to promote good quality design appropriate to its setting. The proposal would also be consistent with the provisions in the Framework in relation to conserving and enhancing the historic environment.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
12 July 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
for a first floor side extension to the house.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Therefore, I conclude that for the above reasons, the proposed development would not accord with the Cambridge Local Plan (2018) policies 55, 56 and 58 which stress the importance of good design and where development does not adversely affect the setting of, amongst other things, trees as well as the character and appearance of an area.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
22 September 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
first and second storey extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude, the proposal would significantly detract from the character and appearance of the area. In that regard, it would conflict with the design, character and context requirements of Policies 55 (Responding to context), 56 (Creating successful places), 58 (Altering and extending existing buildings) of the Cambridge Local Plan (2018) LP. For the same reasons the proposal would also conflict with [name] ([name]) of the LP and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which includes that proposals should be of a good design, add to the overall quality of the area, be visually attractive as a result of good architecture and be sympathetic to local character including the surrounding built environment.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
5 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
existing garage to be demolished, two-storey side extension with a single-storey rear/ side extension. Roof extension with a rear dormer featuring a hip-to-gable. 3No skylight to front roof elevation.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
In combination, the proposed changes would result in an obtrusive and discordant extension that would materially harm the appearance of the property within the street. This is in conflict with [name] ([name]) of the Cambridge Local Plan (CLP) 2018 which indicates that roof extensions should relate well to the proportions, roof form and massing of the existing house and neighbouring properties. The use of matching materials would not lessen the harm that I have found. Even though the proposal would not be visible for the full length of the street, its uncharacteristic and dominant form would make it an incongruous and prominent feature in the street scene, unduly harmful to the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
13 October 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
replace existing boundary 3 foot high fencing with 6 foot high hit & miss fencing. Increase vehicle access visibility splay.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in this appeal are the effects of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For these reasons, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area. The proposal would conflict with Policies 55 and 56 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2018 which together require that development proposals are informed by local characteristics, including through its form and materials, responds positively to its context, and improves public realm.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2