Appeal 3333928
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
part demolition of, and construction of, single storey side extension to existing garage and central mezzanine store extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the building and surrounding area.
Section 04
[name]
The property was subject to a previous application which was granted permission for extensions to the existing garage.
Section 05
Reasons
No. [site address] is a detached 4-bedroom dwelling located at the end of a shared driveway. It is part of a modern housing development which has a varied layout and buildings of a mixed character and size. Garages in the area are generally forward of the dwellings and have flat roofs. Boundary treatment and vegetation, as well as a detached garage, provide screening of views towards the property from the public highway. However, the front elevation of the dwelling can be seen at a higher level from the public road, along the shared driveway. It may also be seen from the adjacent neighbouring properties.
At the time of my site visit it was apparent that the detached double garage at the front of [site address] had been demolished. However, having regard to the submitted plans, the proposed pitched roof would add considerable height and bulk making the proposed building appear a dominant feature that would not be subordinate to the dwelling. It would also result in the front elevation of the dwelling being unduly obscured when viewed along the driveway, and when compared to the previous garage which had a lower flat roof. A pitched roof would also be contrary to the form and design of garages in the vicinity which are generally small in size and scale with flat roofs.
I find that the proposal would have a significant harmful effect on the character and appearance of the building and surrounding area. It would therefore conflict with Plan:MK policies D1, D2 and D3 and policy 9 of the [site address] Neighbourhood Plan which together seek to ensure that the design of buildings creates a positive character and high-quality places. It would also conflict with the objective of good design in the National Planning Policy Framework
Section 06
Conclusion
I have taken all other matters raised into account. For the reasons given above the appeal is 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 108No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted site visit dates
- 6 February 2024 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3333928
- Application reference
- 23/01495/HOU
- 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
- Unknown
- 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
- Not recorded
- 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
- 27 November 2023
- Valid date
- 27 November 2023
- Start date
- 9 February 2024
- Planning authority decision date
- 4 September 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 22 March 2024
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
- 48587
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:27
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21