Milton Keynes City Council appeal evidence
Refused over neighbour living conditions in Milton Keynes?
See cited local examples on overlooking, daylight, outlook and outdoor amenity space.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 18 of 60
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 5
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 13
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 17
- of 18 matched records
AI-assisted. Cited sources and wording were checked before publication. Based on 5 source-linked examples shown below. Review method and limits.
Planning Data area point: Milton Keynes LPA (52.083864, −0.733499). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Milton Keynes City Council appeal findings
Overlooking, daylight and garden effects in Milton Keynes
The selected examples have a higher share of allowed decisions than the matched local set. Appeal 61831 concerns a condition on outdoor space at the appeal dwelling.
Counted against appeals
Overlooking and daylight harm
Obscure glazing did not solve overlooking
The Inspector said obscure glazing would not overcome perceived overlooking caused by the scheme’s overall scale and proximity to No 36.
Sunlight and daylight loss
The Inspector concluded the development would harm No. 48 through lost sunlight and daylight.
Helped or needed
Evidence that avoided neighbour harm
45-degree line and outlook
The Inspector concluded the scheme would not breach the 45-degree line or significantly affect outlook across No 37’s wide garden.
No harmful enclosure or privacy loss
The Inspector found no significant enclosure or loss of privacy within No 37 or its garden.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal say how scale and proximity would create overlooking?
- Does it identify a neighbour’s lost sunlight or daylight?
- Do your drawings test the 45-degree line from affected patio doors?
Appeal 62151 is at this issue’s edge: no living-conditions harm, but dismissal on character and appearance. These decisions do not predict another result.
Appeal evidence examples
Compare allowed and dismissed appeal reasoning
Each example separates the development, the Inspector-stated issue that selected it, and the reasoning from the decision. Compare the facts as well as the outcome: these examples do not predict how a different proposal would be decided.
Allowed appeal examples
2 examples
18 June 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a first floor extension over the existing garage, a garage conversion and a two storey rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: The character and appearance of the host property and the area; and The living conditions of adjacent occupiers, with particular regard to the outlook from [address] (‘No 37’).
Paragraph 3 · Source pages 1, 2
Reasoning from the decision
Consequently, I have no reason to doubt that the proposal would not breach a 45 degree line drawn from those patio doors, and the outlook from them, and from No 37’s other rear windows down that property’s fairly wide garden, would not be significantly impacted. Thus, the scheme would not result in a significant sense of enclosure, or significantly diminish privacy, within No 37 and its garden, and it would not affect those occupants’ living conditions to a harmful degree.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 3
16 December 2024 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
the erection of first floor extension, single storey rear extension and front canopy including associated alterations. The part demolition of existing garage to convert into new patio. Demolition of existing boundary wall and steps at rear garden and erection of new retaining boundary wall to connect the main dwelling and new steps access to the rear garden. Expansion of existing steps to the east and erection of new retaining boundary wall to eastern boundary. Installation of flue on west elevation and solar panels on rear elevation.
Issue identified by the Inspector
There is one main issue which is whether Condition No3 is necessary and reasonable, having regard to the living conditions of occupiers of the appeal dwelling with respect to outside amenity space.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
It is concluded on the main issue that Condition No3 is not necessary to make the development permitted acceptable in planning terms and is therefore not reasonable, having regard to the living conditions of occupiers of the appeal dwelling with respect to outside amenity space.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
11 March 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the demolition of existing rear elements and the erection of two-storey rear extensions, front porches, fenestration changes, and associated works.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupants of 36 [site address] (No 36) with particular regard to privacy.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Regarding possible mitigation that could be achieved by planning conditions. Firstly, that the first-floor windows of the appeal scheme could be obscurely glazed to prevent the overlooking of No 36. However, in my planning judgement, this would not overcome the unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupants of No 36. This is because it would not adequately mitigate the perceived sense of overlooking given the overall scale and proximity of the appeal scheme to the rear boundary of No 36.
Paragraph 15 · Source page 2
2 March 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as proposed ground floor rear extension with first floor rear dormers.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue of the appeal is the effect of the proposed extension on the living conditions of 48 [name], with particular reference to sunlight, daylight and outlook.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude the proposed development would be harmful to the living conditions of No. 48, through the loss of sunlight and daylight to the dwelling. Consequently, the development would conflict with Policy D5 of Plan:MK 2019, which seeks that proposals are required to protect a good standard of living conditions including sunlight and daylight within buildings. It would also conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework, which seeks to provide a high standard of living conditions for existing and future users.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
23 December 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
for a single storey front extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the appeal proposal upon the character and appearance of the area; and upon the living conditions of the occupants of [address], with specific reference to outlook and sunlight.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
On balance, I consider that the scheme would not be unduly overbearing and consequently in respect of living conditions alone, the proposal would comply with Plan:MK Policy D5 which requires proposals to create and protect a good standard of amenity for buildings and, amongst other things, should ensure that the levels of sunlight and daylight within buildings and garden areas are satisfactory whilst ensuring that new development is not overbearing upon them as well. However, this does not outweigh the harm that the proposal would cause to the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 2