Erection of a detached double garage to front and provision of vehicular access

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 16 December 2025 by Ellie Nutman BA (Hons) Decision by M Russell BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 12th February 2026 Appeal Ref: 6001042 38 South Street, Comberton, Cambridgeshire CB23 7DZ • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr J Shinn against the decision of South Cambridgeshire District Council. • The application Ref is 25/01857/HFUL. • The development proposed is erection of a detached double garage to front and provision of vehicular access. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal Procedure 2. The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. Preliminary Matter 3. Planning permission has already been granted for a replacement dwelling on the site, and this approved dwelling is now substantially complete. I have therefore assessed the proposed garage in relation to that approved dwelling. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons for the Recommendation 5. The appeal site is located on a section of South Street which is largely characterised by residential dwellings in a mixture of styles to one side and allotments beyond grassed verges and hedging to the other. The dwellings to the side where 38 South Street is located follow a broadly similar alignment, each being set a substantial distance back from its front boundary. Where garages and outbuildings serve these neighbouring properties, they are more typically aligned with, or set back from, the principal elevations of the dwellings. These factors ensure that there is an overriding order to the position of buildings and this positively contributes to the sense of openness and a semi-rural character. 6. The South Cambridgeshire District Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2010) states that in most cases garages located within the dwelling plot should be recessed from the building frontage so as to lessen their visual impact. Appeal Decision 6001042 2 7. By virtue of its substantial form, its position forward of the prevailing building frontage on South Street, in close proximity to the front boundary, the double garage would be an unduly prominent feature that would detract from the established order and spacious character to this section of South Street. I accept materials sympathetic to surrounding properties would be used and that the existing and proposed hedgerows would to some extent screen the garage from the street. However, the new planting would take time to establish. Even then, the garage would be visible through the site entrance and its upper parts, including the roof, would likely protrude above the top of the new hedge. Consequently, these factors would not fully assimilate the building’s incongruous form and siting. 8. My attention has been drawn to a limited number of examples of garages positioned within the frontages of properties in Comberton. However, most of these are located on Green End, and neither these nor the single example referred to on South Street provide a compelling precedent or justify the harm identified having regard to the prevailing character of the appeal site’s immediate context. 9. 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. Conclusion and Recommendation 10. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. Ellie Nutman APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 11. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. M Russell INSPECTOR