Skip to main content
Official casework recordAllowedCurrent release

Appeal 3371696

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

5 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

described in the application form as “Proposed demolition of existing conservatory and construction of two-storey rear extension”.

  1. Section 02

    Decision

    The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the “Proposed demolition of existing conservatory and construction of two-storey rear extension”, at [site address] , [site address] , [site address] [postcode] , in accordance with the terms of the application (reference PLN/2025/1099), subject to the conditions set out in the attached Schedule of Conditions.

  2. Section 03

    Main issue

    The main issue to be determined in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the residential amenities of neighbours (whether unacceptable harm would be caused by overbearing appearance or overshadowing).

  3. Section 04

    Reasons

    The appeal site is located in one of the modern residential areas of [site address] , in the western part of the City. Although the layout is in the modern part of the City, the houses are traditional in form and the meandering road layout creates a pleasant suburban environment, with an established character.

    Number [site address] is set back from the road, approximately alongside number 45 (to the south-west), although number 41 is set forward, creating interest in the streetscene. Like its neighbours, number 43 is constructed of brickwork under a pitched, tiled roof, in a traditional form. Being set back from the road, number 43 does not have a deep back garden but it is set on a tapering plot that widens at the rear, which adds to the back garden.

    It is now proposed to build a two-storey rear extension, projecting into the back garden, following the demolition of an existing single-storey rear conservatory.

    The ‘National Planning Policy Framework’ emphasises the aim of “achieving well designed places” in the broadest sense (notably at Section 12), while making effective use of land and encouraging economic activity. It is aimed at achieving Appeal Decision: APP/Y0435/D/25/3371696 good design standards generally, by adding to the overall quality of the area and being visually attractive and sympathetic to local character and history, although it is also recognised that appropriate change may include increased densities. The achievement of good design includes protecting existing residential amenities and providing good standards of accommodation in new development.

    Policies in the Development Plan share these basic design principles, including Policies that are specifically intended to protect existing residential amenities. “Plan:MK 2016-2031” was formally adopted in March 2019 and relevant Policies stress the importance of good design (for example, at Policy D1). In particular, Policy D5 points out the need to protect residential amenities, among other things.

    The Council’s ‘New Residential Development Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document’ (which was adopted in April 2012) also raises considerations of “[name]” and is also relevant, although it does not have the force of the statutory Development Plan.

    In this case, the proposed two-storey extension at the rear of the existing house would project significantly into the back garden area. The extension would be sited to the north-east of the adjoining garden at number 45 and would not cause significant overshadowing of the neighbouring garden, however.

    Moreover, the existing planting near the boundary would mitigate the impact on the neighbour to an extent, while the proposed extension would be set back from its side boundary with number 45, which is at an angle to the building. I am persuaded, on balance, that the outlook from number 43 would not be affected to an extent that would be unacceptable in planning terms and that the proposed extension would not have an unduly overbearing appearance.

    The proposed extension would evidently encroach on the shallow back garden at number 43, although an adequate garden space would be retained due to the width of the plot. Moreover, the existing conservatory projects into the garden in any case and I am conscious that other schemes have also been approved that would have some impact on the back garden. Hence, this scheme would not have a harmful effect on the surroundings generally.

    Evidently, the appeal site lies within an established urban area, which is “sustainable” in planning terms, and the proposed extension would be a useful addition to the accommodation at Number [site address] . The contribution that the appeal scheme would make to the provision of residential accommodation in the locality, even though it would be limited, weighs in favour of the appeal.

    In consequence, I have concluded that the project would not be in conflict with the Development Plan, in principle, and I am persuaded that the scheme before me can properly be permitted, subject to conditions. [name] have considered all the matters that have been raised in the representations, I have found nothing to cause me to alter my decision.

    I have, however, also considered the need for conditions and, in imposing conditions, I have taken account of the conditions suggested by the Council in the usual way (without prejudice to their main arguments in the appeal). In particular, I have concluded that conditions are necessary, to define the planning permission and to ensure that quality is maintained. Appeal Decision: APP/Y0435/D/25/3371696

    In their note on conditions, the Council have also included an “Informative” to draw attention to the fact that “this development has the potential to impact great crested newts, a European protected species, as there are ponds/waterbodies and suitable habitat within 500m of the development”. The Council goes on to point out that, “if great crested newts are discovered during development, all works must cease until advice has been sought from Natural England, as failure to do so could result in prosecutable offences being committed”. The advice is opportune. Nonetheless, I do not believe that an additional formal condition is necessary to impose a specific control in respect of possible wildlife implications, since this is covered by other legislation.

  4. Section 05

    SCHEDULE OF 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 drawings: drawing number PL01 (Existing Site Location & Proposed Block Plan); drawing number PL02 (Existing Site Photos); drawing number PL03 ([name]); drawing number PL04A ([name]); drawing number PL05A (Existing & [name]).

    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.

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 285No official casework-database value to compare
    Extracted decision date · page 1
    22 October 2025Matches the official casework database
    Extracted site visit dates
    6 October 2025 (page 1)

Reference and authority

Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.

Case reference
3371696
Application reference
PLN/2025/1099
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
23 August 2025
Valid date
23 August 2025
Start date
2 September 2025
Planning authority decision date
13 August 2025
Appeal decision date
22 October 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
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
78417
First seen
20 August 2026 at 14:25
Last seen
20 August 2026 at 16:29
Removed from release
Not recorded
Record created
20 August 2026 at 14:25
Record updated
24 August 2026 at 16:21