Appeal 3352858
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
7 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 erection of a two storey front extension with pitch roof. New front porch. Part single storey rear extension with enclosed balcony above, part two storey rear extension with pitched roof and a Juliet balcony. Raise roof height and loft conversion with a rear dormer and front roof light. Removal of a chimney and new doors and windows including fenestration changes.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Procedural Matter
The Council changed the description of development from that stated on the application form. In the interests of clarity, I consider that the amended description accurately describes the appeal scheme and accordingly I have adopted an amended description in the heading above.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the development on the living conditions of occupiers of No. [address].
Section 05
Reasons
The appeal site is a detached property within a predominantly residential area. Properties in the immediate area are staggered in terms of building line and vary in design.
The proposed development includes tall windows at ground and first floor which would face onto No. [address]. The ground floor windows would look onto the shared boundary between the appeal site and No. 14, a number of outbuildings run along the boundary as such two of these ground floor windows would not overlook the private amenity space of No. 14.
A condition could be imposed to obscurely glaze the first floor and two ground floor windows which would not look onto the outbuildings. A small window exists at first floor facing No. 14 the introduction of more windows facing No. 14, even if obscurely glazed would for the occupiers of No. 14 exacerbate the sense of being under surveillance and to my mind would significantly diminish the enjoyment of their property.
The proposed development would extend the built form of the appeal property along the boundary with No. 14. Whilst it is not unusual for properties to have a staggered arrangement, due to the existing stagger, the window arrangement of No. 14 and the bulk of the proposed two storey extension combined with the existing property the development would be overbearing in terms of outlook for the occupiers of No. 14.
I conclude that the proposed development would harm the living conditions of occupiers of No. [address].
The proposal conflicts with Policy D5 of the Plan:MK 2016-2031 (2019) which seek amongst other things to protect the amenities of existing occupiers of neighbouring properties. 10.The New Residential Development Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document Adopted (2012) (the SPD) appears to relate to new residential development rather than extensions. Notwithstanding this the proposed development conflicts with the SPD which seeks to ensure residential developments protect residential amenity.
Section 06
Other Matters
The Appellant has drawn my attention to other developments which have overlooking issues. I have been provided with limited information to compare these to the proposal before me. Notwithstanding this each development must be considered on its individual merits, and I have reached my conclusion based on the individual merit of the appeal proposal.
Section 07
Conclusion
For the above reasons I conclude that this 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 126No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 10 December 2024Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 18 November 2024 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3352858
- Application reference
- 24/01270/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
- 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
- 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
- 30 September 2024
- Valid date
- 30 September 2024
- Start date
- 21 October 2024
- Planning authority decision date
- 28 August 2024
- Appeal decision date
- 10 December 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
- 61564
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:28
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21