Single storey side extension with rooftop terrace, conversion of garage, and installation of new front dormer and Velux windows

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 21 August 2025 by Victor Callister BA(Hons) PGC(Oxon) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date:09 September 2025 Appeal Ref: APP/Y0435/D/25/3368398 35 Calshot Drive, Kingsmead, Milton Keynes MK4 4LR • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Baldip Basi against the decision of Milton Keynes City Council. • The application Ref is PLN/2025/0468. • The development proposed is a single storey side extension with rooftop terrace, conversion of garage, and installation of new front dormer and Velux windows. Decision 1. 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 35 Calshot Drive, Kingsmead, Milton Keynes MK4 4LR in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref PLN/2025/0468, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) 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 3) 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. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect on the character and appearance of the appeal dwelling and that of the local area. Reasons 3. 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. 4. 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. Appeal Decision APP/Y0435/D/25/3368398 2 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. 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. Appeal Decision APP/Y0435/D/25/3368398 3 Conditions 11. 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. Conclusion 12. For the reasons given, the appeal is allowed. Victor Callister INSPECTOR