Appeal 3368398
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
a single storey side extension with rooftop terrace, conversion of garage, and installation of new front dormer and Velux windows.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey side extension with rooftop terrace, conversion of garage, and installation of new front dormer and Velux windows at [site address] , Kingsmead, [site address] [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/2025/0468, subject to the following conditions:
The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 24/193/03, 24/193/05 and 24/193/09
The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect on the character and appearance of the appeal dwelling and that of the local area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal dwelling is a relatively recent detached two storey house with a separate double garage. This is located at the end of a group of three similar dwellings with detached garages. These are located in a wider residential area made up of similar dwellings with detached garages.
To the front of the appeal dwelling and its garage is a large block paved driveway and parking area, this is accessed by what appears to be a private driveway access that is shared with its two neighbouring dwellings. To the front of the row of three houses, of which the appeal dwelling forms part, and beyond the access driveway is an open green area with grass and surrounding trees and shrubbery.
The separate garage sits to the side and slightly rearward of the appeal dwelling. Unlike the garages of the other houses in the row of which the appeal dwelling forms part, this is not in orthogonal alignment with the appeal dwelling. It is angled forward towards the driveway on that side furthest away from the appeal dwelling. As such, it does not have a symmetrical arrangement or relationship with the appeal dwelling, or with neighbouring properties and their associated garages.
The proposal is to convert the existing garage to living space and to add an extension to the side of the appeal dwelling that extends across the full width of the front of the garage. This extension would be set significantly back from the front elevation of the house, with its front and flank walls in orthogonal alignment with the appeal dwelling. The proposed extension would provide for direct internal access to the converted garage that would have a first floor added into its loft area. this would be accompanied by a new front dormer window, reflecting the design of the front feature gables of the appeal dwelling, and 2 rooflights to both the front and rear roof slopes.
The proposed extension would also provide a replacement double garage with a large single door. Above this, the proposal is for a roof terrace that would be accessed from the proposed new floor of living space in the roof area above the existing garage. The proposed single storey side extension would have a metal balustrade to the roof terrace between brick piers and would be in materials to match existing. Along with its proposed orthogonal relationship with the appeal dwelling, the scale, design and matching materials of the proposed extension would result in it appearing as a congruent and subordinate addition to the appeal dwelling, reflecting its existing character.
The proposed single garage door to the replacement garage, rather than double doors as the existing garage, would not be seen in relation to the garages of neighbouring houses, except in longer views, where such a difference would be virtually unnoticeable in the wider scene. In longer views across the open green area to the front, the roof of the existing garage and the proposed additional dormer window would be visible behind the proposed ground floor extension. However, in views from the shared access driveway, the existing garage and proposed dormer would be substantially screened behind the balustrade to the front and side of the proposed roof terrace.
Although in longer views the proposal would not fully mask the misalignment of the existing garage with the appeal dwelling, the proposal would sit in the foreground views towards it from across the open green area. Due to its orthogonal alignment and matching materials with the appeal dwelling, the proposed extension would generally represent an improvement on the existing uncomfortable and incongruous visual relationship between the appeal dwelling and the misaligned existing garage.
For these reasons, I find that the proposal would not result in any significant harm to the character and appearance of the appeal dwelling or that of the local area. As such the proposal would accord with Policies D1, D2 and D3 of the Plan:MK 2016-2031 (2019). Collectively these seek development, including by extension, which relate well to existing building and plot, respond appropriately to the site and surrounding context, allows for visual interest and exhibits a positive character.
Section 05
Conditions
Along with the standard condition relating to the timing of implementation, in the interests of design quality I have attached conditions requiring adherence to approved drawings and matching materials.
Section 06
Conclusion
For the reasons given, the appeal is allowed.
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 209No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 9 September 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 21 August 2025 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3368398
- Application reference
- PLN/2025/0468
- 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
- Allowed
- Decision category
- Allowed
- Received date
- 29 June 2025
- Valid date
- 29 June 2025
- Start date
- 1 July 2025
- Planning authority decision date
- 9 June 2025
- Appeal decision date
- 9 September 2025
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
- No
- 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
- 76031
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- 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