South Cambridgeshire District Council appeal evidence
Refused over character and appearance in South Cambridgeshire?
Learn which site and building details counted against local proposals, and the limited finding from an allowed extension.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 58 of 72
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 15
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 41
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 50
- of 58 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: South Cambridgeshire LPA (52.17285, 0.081262). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
South Cambridgeshire District Council appeal findings
South Cambridgeshire building design and area character
Some selected examples give only the Inspector’s conclusion, so they reveal little about the design assessment.
Counted against appeals
Why buildings harmed area character
White shutter at cul-de-sac head
A large timber shed in front of the dwelling was clearly visible within the cul-de-sac, and its white roller shutter was particularly evident.
Different house designs weakened comparisons
Nearby flat roofs did not assist because they were on differently designed homes, and the Inspector still found unacceptable harm to the area.
Trees did not remove garage harm
Removing two trees was not materially harmful visually, but the replacement garage was still found harmful to the area’s character and appearance.
Helped or needed
What the allowed rear extension showed
Appropriate to the host dwelling
The allowed rear extension was found appropriate to its host dwelling and not harmful to the dwelling or surrounding area.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal notice identify size, siting or materials?
- Does it mention a street-facing building or door?
- Does it rely on examples from differently designed homes?
The allowed-extension extract gives its conclusion but no design detail for a closer comparison. 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
19 November 2021 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a single storey rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in the appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Therefore, the proposed extension would be an appropriate addition to the host dwelling which would not harm its character and appearance nor that of the surrounding area and would not conflict with Policies H13 and HQ1 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan (2018). These policies require extensions to be appropriate in terms of their scale and character with the existing dwelling and to preserve or enhance the character of the local rural area and respond to its context in the wider landscape, whilst not materially changing the impact on its surroundings.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
12 February 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
erection of a detached double garage to front and provision of vehicular access.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude that the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. In that regard, it would conflict with Policy HQ/1 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 which, amongst other matters, requires development to make a positive contribution to its local context and to be compatible with its location and appropriate in terms of form and siting in relation to the surrounding area.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
5 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a replacement garage building.
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
For these reasons, although the proposed removal of the two trees would not result in material harm to visual amenity, the replacement building would nevertheless cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area. The scheme would therefore conflict with [name]/1 and H/13 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan (SCLP) (September 2018), which, amongst other matters, require development to achieve high‐quality design that preserves local character and ensures that extensions are in scale and character with the host dwelling. Given my finding on tree removal, the proposal would not conflict with Policy NH/2 of the SCLP, which requires the protection of important landscape features, as the limited loss identified would not undermine the wider landscape resource.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
12 April 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a 3.2m x 2.7m cycle storage shed beside driveway.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposal would result in a large timber building with a white roller shutter door, in front of the dwelling and near the head of Borrowcrofts cul-de-sac. The structure would be screened to a large extent from [address] by the existing hedge providing it was retained and maintained at its current height. It would, however, be clearly evident and prominent in views when within the cul-de-sac. The white roller shutter door would be particularly evident. A building of this size, in this specific location and with the proposed materials, would detract from the character and appearance of this area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
7 July 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a first floor side and rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect upon the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The appellant has referred to other flat roofs in the area, but these relate to dwellings of a different design. In any event, I have determined this appeal on its individual merits and find that unacceptable harm would be caused to the character and appearance of the area when considered as a whole.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2