Extension to dwelling house

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 10 February 2026 by Ellie Nutman BA (Hons) Decision by David M H Rose BA(Hons) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 17 April 2026 Appeal Ref: 6002289 The Barn, 88 Main Street, Witchford CB6 2HQ • 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 & Mrs Ian and Emma Clifton against the decision of East Cambridgeshire District Council. • The application Ref is 25/00703/FUL. • The development proposed is extension to dwelling house. 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 Matters 3. Whilst there is a considerable degree of separation between the appeal site and 82 Main Street, a Grade II listed building, I am required under section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the listed building or its setting. While the Council did not cite heritage impact as a reason for refusal, I have nevertheless considered this duty. From what I observed on site, the proposal would not intrude upon the listed building’s setting. Therefore, the proposal would have a neutral impact upon the setting of the listed building. Main Issue 4. The main issues of the appeal are the effect of the proposal on: • The character and appearance of the area; and • The living conditions of the occupiers of the adjacent dwelling north of the appeal site, with particular regard to outdoor amenity, arising from additional enclosure and dominance of the rear garden, and sunlight. Reasons for the Recommendation Character and appearance 5. The proposal comprises a new-build, detached dwelling, which mimics a barn-style conversion set well back from the highway. Despite this setback, the openness of Appeal Decision 6002289 2 the site’s access results in the building remaining readily visible from the public realm. To the south of the appeal site lies a large, detached frontage dwelling, 86 Main Street (No 86), while to the north and rear is, Briars End, a cul-de-sac road, from which a terrace of dwellings is accessed. The rear gardens of these properties back onto, and face toward, the appeal site. One of these dwelling and its associated rear garden lie directly to the rear of the proposed development, and its west site boundary is partially defined by a brick structure with a pitched roof, which appears to be a row of garages. 6. I do not consider the proposal to result in an overdevelopment of the site in relation to the dwelling’s curtilage. However, the appeal dwelling was designed to appear like a converted agricultural building. It is a combination of single and one and a half storeys in height with upper floor rooms partially accommodated within the roof. It has a taller, primary central limb, running north-south with lower, subsidiary wings to the east (single storey) and west (one and a half storey). The subsidiary nature of the western wing is evident from the street across the frontage of no 90/92. 7. The proposed extension to the western wing, aligned parallel with, and marginally higher than, the primary central component would diminish the current balanced composition. In particular, the added bulk and mass, and the new primacy of the extended west elevation, compounded by its heavy dormer windows, would provide uncharacteristic focus. 8. I recognise the reasoning in the Mepal appeal, where a lack of distinctive street character and a unique site context justified a more flexible application of design guidance. While the barn-like form of the host property shows that varied designs are accepted and present within the street scene, the proposal would not enhance its character and would not form a sympathetic or balanced addition. Although the appellant contends that subservience is impracticable and that the design would enhance Main Street, I am not persuaded that these points justify the scale or form of the development. 9. While I recognise the appellant’s view that the proposed extension would only be glimpsed from the public realm due to the set-back position of the dwelling and the limited vantage points along the access, the access to the site is open, providing clear views of the dwelling. Nevertheless, such visibility constraints do not outweigh the design concerns identified. Although reference has been made to the allowed appeal at Littleport1, the two cases relate to different settlements, site layouts and design contexts, and are therefore not directly comparable. I have nevertheless considered the Inspector’s observation in that decision that “views of the dwelling from within the street scene would be limited to those visible from the entrance into the site, where the side perspectives of the dwelling would diminish the perception of the dwelling width to some degree”. In that case, the principal view from the street was of a side elevation, meaning the full width of the dwelling could not be appreciated, a circumstance further reinforced by the presence of a substantial hedgerow along the site frontage which filtered views from the highway. Those particular mitigating factors are not present to the same extent in the appeal before me now. 10. I conclude, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area. Consequently, the proposal fails to accord with policy ENV2 of the East 1 Littleport Appeal Decision (APP/V0510/D/25/3362295) Appeal Decision 6002289 3 Cambridgeshire Local Plan (2015) (as amended 2023) (LP) which require that developments relate sympathetically to the surrounding area and each other. The proposal also fails to accord with Chapter 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which requires that developments are visually attractive as a result of good architecture. 11. Although the Council’s decision notice refers to Policy WNP H3 of the Witchford Neighbourhood Plan (as modified 2025), this policy is concerned with the design of new dwellings within residential development schemes. As such, it does not appear to be directly relevant to the proposal before me. Living Conditions 12. There is currently a modest degree of openness between the existing garage structure and the appeal site, which allows the occupants of the neighbouring property on Briar’s End to retain some outlook and to receive sunlight into its rear garden. The proposal would sit much closer to the north boundary and would fill this existing gap, resulting in structures sitting beyond much of the neighbouring property’s rear garden. Given the existing site conditions, there would be a material loss of outdoor amenity arising from additional enclosure and dominance of the neighbour’s rear garden. 13. While the southern part of the garden contains high-level shrubs that provide some screening, these are not of comparable height, massing or permanence to meaningfully screen the proposed extension. Nor can such planting be relied upon to dictate how the garden is used. 14. Due to its height, length, and position immediately beyond the boundary, combined with the orientation of the properties and the sun’s path, the proposal would give rise to a degree of shading over the neighbouring rear garden, however any increase would be limited due to existing site conditions. Therefore, whilst I have found the effect on sunlight to be acceptable, this does not mitigate the harm I have identified in respect of the loss of outdoor amenity arising from the proposal. 15. I conclude, whilst the proposal would retain acceptable levels of sunlight, the proposal would harm the living conditions of the occupiers of the adjacent dwelling north of the appeal site, with particular regard to outdoor amenity. Consequently, the proposal is contrary to policy ENV2 of the LP which seeks to ensure there is no significantly detrimental effect on the residential amenity of nearby occupiers. The proposal also fails to accord with Chapter 12 of the Framework which requires development proposals to promote a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. Conclusion and Recommendation 16. In accordance with section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, I have considered the proposal against the development plan taken as a whole. While I have not identified harm in respect of sunlight, the scheme would nevertheless result in unacceptable harm to outlook and would detract from the character and appearance of the area. These conflicts carry significant weight and, in the absence of material considerations to indicate otherwise, the proposal does not accord with the development plan as a whole. Appeal Decision 6002289 4 17. 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 18. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. David MH Rose INSPECTOR