Skip to main content
Official casework recordAllowedCurrent release

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 works

One-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.

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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