Existing garage to be demolished, two-storey side extension with a single-storey rear/ side extension. Roof extension with a rear dormer featuring a hip-to-gable. 3No skylight to front roof elevation

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 15 May 2026 by Andrew Fulford BSc MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 5th June 2026 Appeal Ref: 6007045 2 Walpole Road, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire CB1 3TJ • 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 Thulie Tshalibe-Catley against the decision of Cambridge City Council. • The application Ref is 25/04575/HFUL. • The development proposed is existing garage to be demolished, two-storey side extension with a single-storey rear/ side extension. Roof extension with a rear dormer featuring a hip-to-gable. 3No skylight to front roof elevation. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. I have taken the description of development in the banner heading above from the Decision Notice of the Council as it describes the development in a more accurate manner than that on the Application Form. Whilst there is no record of a formal agreement to the change in front of me, I note that the appellant has used the Council’s revised description in their Appeal Statement. I am therefore satisfied that neither party is prejudiced by this course of action. 3. The scheme includes a single storey rear/side extension. There is agreement between the parties that this element of the scheme is acceptable. The evidence does not lead me to a different conclusion, and I have not considered this element of the scheme any further. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Reasons 5. The appeal site is located within a residential area consisting primarily of semi- detached dwellings, although there is a two-storey flatted development adjacent to the appeal property and Philip Howard Catholic Church is located on the opposite side of the road. All dwellings tend to be constructed in red brick and there is a mix of hipped and gable end roof designs. While the area is not part of a conservation area or otherwise designated, there is a uniform building line along Walpole Road and generally a consistent pattern of development. 6. The appeal property is semi-detached property and is adjacent to two semi- detached pairs which are of the same design with a hipped roof. There is a gap Appeal Decision 6007045 2 between the side elevation of the appeal property and the side boundary treatment. 7. The appeal scheme proposes a two-storey side extension which would not be set down or set back from the front elevation of the original dwelling appearing unduly dominant in the street. This dominance would be exacerbated by the incorporation of a gable end roof design which would add additional bulk and visibly unbalance the pair of semi-detached dwellings. The addition of a large dormer window across the full width of the rear roof plane would add further massing to this unsympathetic proposal. 8. In combination, the proposed changes would result in an obtrusive and discordant extension that would materially harm the appearance of the property within the street. This is in conflict with Appendix E (Roof Extensions Design Guide) of the Cambridge Local Plan (CLP) 2018 which indicates that roof extensions should relate well to the proportions, roof form and massing of the existing house and neighbouring properties. The use of matching materials would not lessen the harm that I have found. Even though the proposal would not be visible for the full length of the street, its uncharacteristic and dominant form would make it an incongruous and prominent feature in the street scene, unduly harmful to the character and appearance of the area. 9. While there are variations in property style along Walpole Road, the appeal site forms part of a run of three pairs of semi-detached dwellings on the eastern side of the road that are quite uniform in appearance with a consistent hipped roof design. The presence of wider variation does not therefore provide a clear context for the proposal. Furthermore, where there are first floor side extensions locally, they are subservient to the main dwelling and maintain the same hipped roof design. As I have described above, this is not the case with the appeal scheme. 10. It has been suggested that the gable end roof design is inspired by the nearby Philip Howard Catholic Church and rectory. However, this non-residential building is of a differing scale, use, and architectural typology, and is of little design relevance to the appeal building. There are no examples of hip to gable roof extensions in the immediate street scene. 11. I therefore conclude that by virtue of its siting, massing and detailed design the proposal would materially harm the character or appearance of the area. It would be contrary to Policies 55, 56 and 58 of the CLP 2018. Amongst other matters, these policies set out that development will be supported where it responds positively to its context, creates attractive frontages, and creates new roof profiles that are sympathetic to the existing building. Other Matters 12. That the Council has found no harm in relation to effects on privacy or outlook of neighbours is a neutral consideration which does not weigh in favour of the appeal. 13. The appellant has indicated that roof additions could be added under permitted development, and that these would be more harmful to character as well as to neighbouring living conditions. However, I have been provided with limited detail for such works and cannot therefore be sure that such development would be a realistic or probable alternative. Moreover, I have no substantive information as to what form such a scheme might take, how its appearance might differ from the Appeal Decision 6007045 3 appeal proposal, or how harm to neighbouring properties may occur. Accordingly, while roof additions may be possible, this theoretical possibility does not outweigh the harm that I have found to the character and appearance of the area. Conclusion 14. The proposal conflicts with the development plan and material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. Andrew Fulford INSPECTOR