Appeal 3297391
Public case and site metadata stored from the official casework database, including fields that were empty in the source release.
A clearer next step
See how Inspectors approached issues like yours
Bring your planning decision into a private workspace. We separate the disputed points, then match them with source-located Inspector reasoning from similar appeals.
- See which issues the decision appears to turn on
- Compare the facts and open the full appeal records
One private comparison
How the refusal review worksOne-off service · No subscription
Similar appeals are evidence to inspect, not a prediction of your outcome.
Official decision document
The decision, section by section
6 sections
Read the development description and the Inspector’s text from the official decision PDF in source order. Source headings are retained where available. Personal and contact details are removed by an automated privacy filter; this is source material, not Rules for You analysis.
Section 01
Development description
the conversion of the loft to habitable space following an increase to the ridge height; insertion of 3 rear facing dormers and 2 front facing roof lights.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the property and the wider area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal property forms part of a modern housing development consisting of mainly detached, two-storey dwellings with double fronted gables with mock- Tudor embellishments. Roof heights and materials are generally uniform and with a mix of hipped roofs and straight gables. The property is located at the head of a short cul-de-sac and where dwellings adjoining it have these characteristics and appearance.
The proposed development, by raising the height of the roof by some 2 metres and by altering the roof slope accordingly would, by its changed appearance, have an incongruous and adverse impact upon the area, and especially within the cul-de sac, and its uniformity of appearance.
In addition, the greater height of the roof would result in it becoming a too dominant element to the dwelling, adversely affecting its overall character and appearance.
On my site visit, I was able to observe other properties which had been extended by an addition to their roof heights. However, number [address] is not located in a cul-de sac and has a more spacious and therefore more Appeal Ref: APP/Y0435/D/22/3297391 acceptable relationship with its adjoining dwellings when compared to the appeal proposal which has a closer, more visually uniform arrangement with the neighbouring properties. [name]. [address] is in a cul-de sac, I am not aware of the circumstances relating to its extensions. In any event, I have determined the appeal upon its individual planning merits.
For the above reasons, I conclude that, when the proposed development is considered as a whole, it would not accord with policies D1 and D2 of Plan:MK 2019, which require development to be appropriate to its surroundings, with policy D3 where development should be of an appropriate scale in relation to other buildings in its immediate vicinity in terms of its height and massing, or with chapter 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2021 which emphasises the need for good design.
Section 05
Other Matters
I consider that the other elements of the proposed design including the dormers and roof lights to be in keeping with the character and appearance of the area. However, I have considered the proposal as a whole and this development is not severable from harmful development.
Section 06
Conclusion
The development would not accord with the development plan for the area when considered as a whole, and there are no material planning considerations which would justify granting planning permission that would conflict with the development plan. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.
Planning inspector and document dates
The official casework attribution is grouped under a one-way keyed hash and shown only by its local identifier. Decision-letter dates and page references are extracted by fixed first-page rules and checked against that authoritative record.
Appeal Decision
- Extracted inspector · page 1
- Inspector attribution ID 163No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 15 August 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 1 July 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3297391
- Application reference
- 22/00050/FUL
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Milton Keynes Council
- Planning authority code
- E06000042
Casework details
The casework, procedure, development and linking details supplied by the official record.
- Casework type
- Householder (HAS)
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development type
- Householder developments
- Appeal type reason
- 1. Refused planning permission
- Appeal reason
- Refusal
- Type detail
- Planning Appeals - Full
- Jurisdiction
- Transferred
- Link status
- Not Linked
Site and development
Published appeal-site measurements and planning designations, without the withheld precise location fields.
- Site area
- Not recorded
- Floor space
- Not recorded
- Number of residences
- 0
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- No
- Affects setting of a listed building
- Not recorded
- Historic building grant made
- Not recorded
- Relates to a conservation area
- Not recorded
- Flooding is an issue
- Not recorded
- Site within an AONB
- Not recorded
- Site within an SSSI
- Not recorded
Decision and dates
The published outcome and every imported case date.
- Official decision
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 21 April 2022
- Valid date
- 21 April 2022
- Start date
- 25 May 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 4 March 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 15 August 2022
Case administration
Published recovery, call-in, costs and enforcement information for this case.
- Redetermined
- No
- Bespoke
- No
- Date recovered
- Not recorded
- Date not recovered or derecovered
- Not recorded
- Call-in date
- Not recorded
- Costs applied for
- Not recorded
- Enforcement grounds count
- Not recorded
- Enforcement grounds
- Not recorded
Source and catalogue history
When this record appeared in the rolling official release and when the catalogue stored it.
- Source
- Planning Inspectorate casework database
- Source data system
- Horizon
- Dataset status
- Current release
- Catalogue record ID
- 19234
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:26
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21