First-floor extension to the side of the property on top of the existing garage. New porch canopy on timber posts to front door area

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 16 March 2026 by M Clowes BA (Hons) MCD PG CERT (Arch Con) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 24 March 2026 Appeal Ref: 6004509 19 Victory Way, Cottenham, Cambridge CB24 8TG • 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 Mrs Webster against the decision of South Cambridgeshire District Council. • The application Ref is 25/04131/HFUL. • The development proposed is described as ‘a first-floor extension to the side of the property on top of the existing garage. New porch canopy on timber posts to front door area.’ Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters and Main Issue 2. The Council raised no objection to the proposed front porch. From all that I have seen and read, I see no reason to take a different view. The main issue in this appeal is therefore, the effect of the proposed first-floor side extension upon the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 3. The appeal site is located within a residential estate of similarly designed dwellings. Whilst there are a small number of terraces nearby, this part of Victory Way is characterised by pairs of semi-detached dwellings, separated by good sized gaps. 4 such pairs including the appeal site, are of a consistent design and layout, set back on either side of the road behind small front gardens. 2 more recent pairs of semi-detached dwellings of contrasting designs and materials stand at the end of the cul-de-sac. Despite the differing designs and although some of the dwellings within the street scene have been extended and altered over time, the semi-detached forms nonetheless remain apparent and dominant, mainly due to the separation gaps. These gaps particularly at first-floor level, provide visual relief and contribute positively to the spacious feel and pleasant rhythm of the street, which are important elements of its character and that of the wider estate. 4. The Council’s Design Guide SPD 2010, acknowledges that extensions can change the character of a street, including by creating the appearance of a terrace where detached or semi-detached forms previously prevailed. It explains that consideration must be given to the existing character of the street, to ensure that the extension will not compromise the established rhythm or visual identity. 5. The appellant accepts that the existing single-storey garage visually closes the gap between the appeal site and the neighbouring dwelling of No 17 Victory Way at ground-floor level. The retention of the openness above, nevertheless preserves Appeal Decision 6004509 2 the rhythm and spacing that characterises this part of the street, as well as ensuring that the buildings read as semi-detached dwellings. 6. The proposed first-floor extension above the garage would reduce the remaining gap at first-floor height with No 17 Victory Way to approximately 0.8m. Even if the proposed extension could be considered to be modest and well-related to the host dwelling with matching materials, it would substantially close the gap between the separate semi-detached properties. When seen from the street and particularly in views from the entrance to this part of Victory Way, the reduction in spacing would create the impression of a terrace rather than two distinct pairs of semi-detached dwellings. This effect would be accentuated by the shared building line and by the fact that both Nos 15 and 17 have already been widened through side extensions. The proposal would further unbalance the semi-detached pair to which the appeal site belongs. Although the harm would be localised, it would nonetheless be appreciable. 7. Other 2-storey side extensions exist within the wider estate. However, they have been constructed so that meaningful gaps remain between the different semi-detached pairs. In this case, No 17 has already been extended up to the side boundary and the appeal scheme would close the remaining gap on the appeal site, leading to a materially different impact on the street scene. 8. I also observed a recently constructed dwelling at the entrance to this part of Victory Way. This adjoins an existing terrace, rather than a pair of semi-detached dwellings. It is also sited on a corner plot with the road providing an intervening feature between it and the terrace on the opposite side. The context is not therefore directly comparable. 9. For these reasons, the proposal would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. It would conflict with Policy HQ/1 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan (2018), which seeks high-quality design that responds to local character. It would also fail to accord with Policy COH/1–4 of the Cottenham Neighbourhood Plan, which requires development to be responsive to village characteristics. Other Matters 10. The appellant suggests that a modest design refinement including a minor set- back to the first-floor element or other proportionate detailing would provide a fallback position. No such alternative has been presented to me. There is no substantive evidence to indicate that the Council would consider a first-floor extension with a modified design acceptable. In any event, I am required to determine the appeal on the basis of the proposal considered by the Council. This does not affect my findings. Conclusion 11. The proposal would conflict with the development plan and there are no considerations that indicate a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. M Clowes - INSPECTOR