Extension
📊
See the success rate & inspector analytics
Free to view — just create an account, no payment needed.
Sign Up FreeTechnical Issues Heatmap
Character & Appearance
Rural Impact
Inspector’s Reasoning
Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 13 December 2022
by Martin H Seddon BSc MPhil DipTP MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 10 January 2023
Appeal Ref: APP/H0520/D/22/3305772
291 Oilmills Road, Ramsey, Mereside, Cambridgeshire PE26 2TT
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant planning permission.
• The appeal is made by Mr and Mrs C Dyer against the decision of Huntingdonshire
District Council.
• The application Ref: 22/00876/HHFUL, dated 2 April 2022, was refused by notice dated
7 July 2022.
• The development proposed is an extension.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Main Issue
2. The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposal on the character and
appearance of the building and surrounding area.
Reasons
3. The appeal building fronts Oilmills Road and is located within a flat agricultural
landscape. Neighbouring dwellings include two small bungalows. The building
has a relatively large curtilage which includes former agricultural buildings, one
of which has been converted to a swimming pool. There is also a garage which
is proposed for demolition.
4. The appellants consider that the dwelling is small and therefore appears
incongruous in relation to the size of the curtilage. However, the appeal
building is two storeys in height and does not appear to be particularly small,
with its frontage being near the road, and in relation to the context of the
smaller adjacent bungalows. The proposals include a front gable which would
have the same ridge height as the appeal building. The gable would almost
double the width of the dwelling and would add significant mass and bulk. It
would have no set back from the dwelling frontage. Consequently, the
extension would not appear as a subservient addition and would not maintain
the prominence of the principal structure, contrary to advice in the
Huntingdonshire Design Guide supplementary planning document. The gable
and its arched ground floor windows would be of a design which would fail to
complement the simple traditional form, proportions and pitched roof of the
original building. The proposed sun room would fail to complement the overall
design of the proposed development in this rural setting.
Appeal Decision APP/H0520/D/22/3305772
2
5. I therefore find that the proposal would have a significant harmful effect on the
character and appearance of the building and surrounding area. It would
conflict with policy LP11 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan which requires
proposals to demonstrate that they relate positively to their context and draw
inspiration from the key characteristics of their surroundings. It would conflict
with Local Plan policy LP12 regarding design implementation. It would also fail
to comply with the design objectives within paragraph 130 of the National
Planning Policy Framework.
Other Matters
6. The appellants refer to other dwellings with gables facing the road at Oilmills
Road and in Mereside. However, these examples are insufficient reason to
justify the appeal proposal. That is because they do not all appear to involve
later extensions and they are not seen directly in context with the appeal
building.
Conclusion
7. The appellants have indicated that the site would be landscaped and the rural
character of the area and biodiversity would be enhanced. The proposal would
incorporate modern sustainability measures including a ground source heat
pump. The proposal would also make use of previously developed land.
However, these benefits would not outweigh the resultant harm to the
character and appearance of the building and surrounding area which I have
identified.
8. I appreciate that the property is old and note that the appellants consider it to
be outdated in its layout. Nevertheless, the appeal proposal would not be the
only means of improving and extending the building. I have taken all other
matters raised into account. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the
appeal should be dismissed.
Martin H Seddon
INSPECTOR
Expert Representation
Don't leave your appeal to chance.
Inspectors are inconsistent. We build a technical defense using precedents from our 182,000+ case archive.
No win, no fee Householder representation — you only pay if you win.