Single storey side and rear extension with alteration to existing flat roof, and window to side elevation

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 12 January 2026 by Alec Hickey MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 4th February 2026 Appeal Ref: 6001391 20 Mill Lane, Impington, Cambridge CB24 9XN • 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 Ben Marshall against the decision of South Cambridgeshire District Council. • The application Ref is 25/02720/HFUL. • The development proposed is single storey side and rear extension with alteration to existing flat roof, and window to side elevation. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. The description of development was amended by the Council and agreed in writing by the appellant. I have therefore determined the appeal on the basis of the description as agreed by the parties and set out in the banner above. 3. As part of the appellant’s evidence, a sunlight and daylight report has been provided. However, neither the Council nor third parties have had the opportunity to comment on the report. The Procedural Guide planning appeals states that if an applicant thinks that amending their application will overcome the LPA’s reasons for refusal, they should normally make a new planning application. As such, and in the interests of fairness I have not considered the report as part of my findings to avoid prejudice to the parties. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers at 22 Mill Lane (No 22), with particular regard to sunlight and daylight. Reasons 5. The appeal property (No 20) is a two-storey semi-detached dwelling located within a predominantly residential area. To the rear is a two-storey pitched-roof extension together with a single-storey flat-roofed projection. The adjoining semi-detached dwelling at No 22 is separated by a shared passageway providing access to rear gardens and a small parking area. At the rear of No 22 is a long single-storey rear extension. 6. During my site visit, I observed the internal arrangement of the single-storey rear element at No 22. This space contains a small study area with a desk and chair, a kitchen area, and a pantry. Whilst this area may not historically have been used as a study, it was clearly in use as a habitable space at the time of my visit. Appeal Decision 6001391 2 7. The amount of sunlight and daylight that reach the study window is restricted to a degree by the overhanging roof form and the limited separation distance from built development at the rear of No 20. In this context, the introduction of additional built form in close proximity would further reduce the levels of sunlight and daylight to the study window. This additional loss of light would result in a noticeably darker and more oppressive internal environment within this habitable space. 8. For the above reasons, the proposed development fails to demonstrate that it would not have a harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 22, with particular regard to sunlight and daylight. It therefore conflicts with South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Policy HQ/1, which requires proposals to protect the amenity of occupiers. It would also be contrary to paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which indicates that planning decisions should ensure that developments create places with a high standard of amenity for existing users. Other Matters 9. The Council has raised no concerns in respect of the design of the proposal. However, this does not outweigh the identified harm arising from the impact on neighbouring living conditions. 10. Reference has also been made to similar domestic developments within the surrounding area. Each case must be considered on its own merits, and the presence of other extensions does not overcome the specific harm identified in this instance. 11. I have had regard to the additional matters raised by interested parties. However, as the appeal is dismissed for the reasons set out above, it has not been necessary to consider these further. Conclusion 12. The proposed development conflicts with the development plan when considered as a whole and there are no material considerations, either individually or in combination, that outweighs the identified harm and associated development plan conflict. 13. Therefore, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. A Hickey INSPECTOR