Erection of an additional two-storeys to existing dwellinghouse

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 31 March 2026 by H Whitfield BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 07 April 2026 Appeal Ref: 6001961 85 Waterbeach Road, Landbeach, Cambridgeshire CB25 9FA • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant approval required under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class AA of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended). • The appeal is made by Mr Mohammed Rahman against the decision of South Cambridgeshire District Council. • The application Ref is 25/03492/PRIOR. • The development proposed is the erection of an additional two-storeys to existing dwellinghouse. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. I have taken the description of development from the decision notice and appeal form as this more accurately describes the proposed development. Background and Main Issues 3. Under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class AA of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 as amended (the GPDO), planning permission is granted for the enlargement of a dwellinghouse by construction of additional storeys, together with any engineering operations reasonably necessary for the purpose of that construction. 4. Development is permitted under Class AA subject to limitations and conditions and a requirement that the developer applies for prior approval to the local planning authority. Where development would not comply with the limitations set out within paragraph AA.1 it falls outside the scope of the permitted development rights and does not benefit from the deemed planning permission granted by the GPDO. 5. Neither the Council’s decision notice nor the accompanying officer report contends that the appeal scheme fails to comply with the limitations at paragraph AA.1. Instead, the Council’s concerns were limited to the effect of the development upon the external appearance of the dwellinghouse, which has been held to extend to the context of the dwellinghouse too. 6. However, representations made by an interested party contend that there is a factual inaccuracy within the appellant’s submission and the appeal scheme fails to comply with the limitation at paragraph AA.1(c). This essentially requires the dwelling to have been constructed between 1 July 1948 and 28 October 2018 in order to be eligible under this Class. The Council has confirmed that this issue should be considered as Appeal Decision 6001961 2 part of the appeal. The appellant was given the opportunity to respond to this point but has not provided any additional comments. 7. Considering the above, the main issues in this appeal are therefore: • whether the proposal would constitute permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 1, Class AA of the GDPO having particular regard to paragraph AA.1(c); and • whether prior approval should be granted having regard to the effect of the proposed development on the external appearance of the dwellinghouse. Reasons 8. Paragraph AA.1(c) provides that development is not permitted under Class AA if the dwellinghouse was constructed before 1 July 1948 or after 28 October 2018 (the relevant dates). The appellant’s evidence provides very little commentary on this point, stating that the dwelling was constructed between the listed dates. 9. Representations made by an interested party contend that the dwellinghouse was constructed prior to 1 July 1948, in approximately 1930. Reference is made to details held on land registry under title number CB482976, dated 20 November 1930 and extracts have been provided from an aerial photograph taken in April 1944 from Historic England’s archives and an Ordnance Survey (OS) map from 1946, which the interested party contends demonstrates that the dwellinghouse was constructed before the relevant date. 10. Save for this information, nothing within the evidence indicates when the dwelling was originally built. I agree that the 1944 aerial photograph provided by the interested party would appear to show the appeal dwelling and a similar site layout to that seen today; however, it is not sufficiently clear for me to draw a definitive conclusion on this matter. The same can also be said for the 1946 OS map. I have not been provided with a copy of the aerial photograph from May 1946 nor a copy of the land registry title and therefore cannot come to a view on these documents. Nevertheless, the evidence from the interested party has not been disputed by the appellant and casts sufficient doubt over whether the dwellinghouse was constructed between the relevant dates. 11. Paragraph AA.3 (3)(b) of Class AA sets out that an application may be refused where the developer has provided insufficient information to enable it to be established whether the proposed development complies with any conditions, limitations or restrictions specified in paragraphs AA.1 and AA. 2 of this Class. Based on the information before me I cannot establish whether the dwellinghouse was constructed between the relevant dates and therefore whether the proposed development complies with the limitation outlined at paragraph AA.1 (c). 12. For the above reasons, I therefore conclude that the proposal would not constitute permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 1, Class AA of the GDPO. 13. Ordinarily, where it is found that the development would not comply with the relevant limitations of the Class of the GPDO, or the developer has provided insufficient information to determine such compliance, it would be unnecessary and inappropriate to proceed to consider the prior approval matters. However, given the circumstances under which the first main issue has arisen in this appeal, I will go on to consider the prior approval matter in dispute for completeness. Appeal Decision 6001961 3 External appearance 14. The appeal site relates to a detached two-storey dwelling within a cluster of residential development along Waterbeach Road. While there are sporadic examples of two-story dwellings along this stretch of the road, the area is mainly characterised by detached bungalows of a similar height and style, set back from the highway along a relatively uniform building line. This generally low-level development respects and contributes positively to the semi-rural characteristics of the area. 15. Where two-storey dwellings are present in the immediate vicinity, they are typically of traditional design with balanced proportions and hipped roofs and are set back from the highway in more spacious plots. This results in them retaining a more recessive appearance and enables them to assimilate into the surrounding street scene. The appeal dwelling reflects these prevailing characteristics and has a traditional, balanced and proportionate design which reflects its more rural setting. 16. The proposed extension would utilise a hipped roof form and would be constructed in materials to match the host dwelling. However, the extension would distort the property’s traditional design and proportions, and its three-storey height would starkly contrast with the generally low-level development along this stretch of the road. The resultant appeal dwelling would have an unbalanced, top-heavy and dominating appearance which would undermine the positive characteristics and recessive appearance of this building in the street scene. Overall, the development would therefore appear as an obvious and incongruous anomaly that fails to successfully integrate with the semi-rural characteristics of the surrounding area. 17. For the above reasons, I therefore find that the proposed development would be harmful to the external appearance of the dwellinghouse and the local area. This conflicts with paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework which requires, among other things, that developments are visually attractive and sympathetic to local character. Accordingly, even in the event that appeal scheme were to comply with the limitations of this Class, I conclude that prior approval should be refused having regard to the effect of the proposed development on the external appearance of the dwellinghouse. Conclusion 18. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. H Whitfield INSPECTOR