Loft conversion

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 10 March 2026 by Emma Brownless BA (Hons) Solicitor (non-practising) an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 30 March 2026 Appeal Ref: 6005323 69 Lichfield Down, Walnut Tree, Milton Keynes, MK7 7AS • 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 Laura Clark against the decision of Milton Keynes Council. • The application Ref is PLN/2025/2376. • The development proposed is described as ‘loft conversion’. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. The submitted plan shows that the proposed ‘loft conversion’ would include the insertion of a number of rooflights within the front elevation of the roof structure and a dormer extension to the rear roofslope of the host dwelling. 3. The appellant’s evidence points to the withdrawal by the Council of a number of permitted development rights as set out in Part 1, Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 20151, however, Class C which is permissive of certain ‘other alterations to the roof’ which could include the installation of rooflights, is not stated to have been withdrawn. Since the Council’s reason for refusal and their evidence points to concerns with the proposed rear dormer extension, rather than the proposed rooflights, from the evidence before me, I shall therefore confine my detailed consideration to the conversion of the loft with particular regard to the proposed dormer extension. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling, the terrace and the surrounding area. Reasons 5. The appeal site is situated within a predominantly residential area partway along Lichfield Down between the junctions of Coriander Court and Harebell Close. Notwithstanding that there is a variety of designs and mix of dwelling types within the surrounding area including detached, semi-detached and terraced properties, dwellings are typically modestly sized, well-kept and are constructed from a common palette of materials comprising red, brown or buff brick with brown roof tiles. Generally, roof structures appear plain and without interruption and include 1 Classes A, B and E of Part 1, Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 Appeal Decision 6005323 2 pitched slopes with some simple gable or hip shapes. Alterations to roof structures such as dormer roof extensions are not commonplace within the area. 6. The appellant has submitted a number of images which purport to show there is no prevailing character or appearance within the locality. In addition, my attention has been drawn to the variety of on-plot parking to the front, side and rear of properties. However, based upon my observations at the site visit, I consider there is a pleasant uniformity and cohesive rhythm to the appearance and character of dwellings within the area which is, in part, contributed to by the consistency of the roofscape which is largely without interruption and unaltered. 7. The host dwelling is a two storey mid-terrace property positioned within a terraced row which follows the curve of the road. I note that the appeal property is not a listed building nor is it positioned within a conservation area. The terrace typically comprises a number of broadly identical dwellings sat underneath a long and continuous pitched roof which runs across the houses in one continuous curved line. Whilst the roof structure includes a gentle hip to one end of the terrace and a front facing gable to the other end which is adjacent to a first-floor oversailing link, it generally comprises a gentle slope on both sides and is largely unaltered. Overall, there is a pleasant uniformity and rhythm to the design, layout and materials of the terrace and thus the host dwelling makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the terrace and the surrounding area. 8. The appeal scheme would introduce a substantial sized flat roof dormer extension to the rear roofslope. Although it would be set down from the ridge of the roof structure and set back from the eaves of the dwelling, it would extend to fill the majority of the width of the rear roof slope of the host dwelling thus interrupting the continuity of the pitched roof form. By reason of its design, scale, bulk and height it would appear as an excessively bulky and discordant addition which would dominate the roofslope and appear at odds with the simple and uninterrupted roof form and design of the host dwelling and terrace. 9. Despite the use of materials to broadly match the colour and style of materials used within the construction of the host dwelling and terrace, the inclusion of a sizeable window would be inconsistent with the modestly proportioned windows contained within the host dwelling and terrace and would reinforce a top-heavy visual appearance thus further increasing the prominence of the proposed development which diminishes the established character and appearance of the area. 10. By reason of the proposed extension being positioned on the rear roofslope of the terrace the proposed dormer extension would not be visible from Lichfield Down. However, taking account of the appellant’s submitted photographs and based upon my observations at the visit, some views of the proposed development from other public vantage points along Coriander Court and Harebell Close would be possible. Albeit views of the proposed development from public viewpoints along Coriander Court would be very limited and glimpsed due to the presence of built form, the proposed development would, due to its elevated height, be readily appreciable above intervening boundary treatments and built form from public vantage points along a short section of Harebell Close. 11. Additionally, despite the curved roof structure, the scheme would also be readily visible in private views from within rear windows and gardens of neighbouring Appeal Decision 6005323 3 dwellings that back onto the rear of the terrace. The proposed development would be apparent from the courtyard parking area, based upon my observations at the visit. From these positions, the eye would be naturally drawn to the proposed development which would be read as an excessively bulky, unsympathetic and visually jarring addition which fails to respect the character and appearance of the host dwelling and terrace and erodes the uniformity of the roofscape with the area. 12. Accordingly, for these reasons, the proposed rear roof dormer extension would, as a consequence of the design, bulk and elevated position have a harmful visual effect on the appearance and character of the host dwelling, terrace and the surrounding area. This would be contrary to Policies D1, D2 and D3 of the Milton Keynes Plan:MK 2016-2031 (2019) insofar as these policies seek to protect the character and appearance of the area and ensure new development is compatible with existing development and buildings. In addition, it would be contrary to Policy WNP15 of the Walton Neighbourhood Plan 2016-2031 (2022) insofar as it requires the design and materials of all new developments to enhance the quality of the built environment through design that is in keeping with the surrounding character. Other Matters 13. No adverse harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, loss of daylight or sunlight, overlooking or overbearing impact has been identified by the Council. No objections to the appeal scheme were made by neighbouring occupiers or the Parish Council. However, the absence of harm is a neutral matter that weighs neither for nor against a proposal. 14. The appeal scheme would provide the appellant with additional living space in the form of a bedroom with ensuite. Whilst the appeal scheme would make effective use of the appeal land, it would be a personal benefit to the appellant which limits the weight to be applied to the effective use of the appeal land to provide additional accommodation. 15. Reference has also been made to paragraph 125(c) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which requires substantial weight to be given to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes and other identified needs and requires such proposals to be approved unless substantial harm would be caused. The appellant argues substantial harm would not be caused. However, the appeal scheme before me concerns the extension of an existing building rather than the development of land for housing or other identified needs, and in any event, the development would need to be considered alongside other policies within the Framework taken as a whole. Conclusion 16. Paragraph 11(c) of the Framework requires development proposals that accord with an up-to-date development plan to be approved without delay. However, given my findings above, I consider that the proposed development would conflict with the development plan and the material considerations weighing in favour of the appeal scheme do not justify a decision otherwise than in accordance with the development plan. I therefore conclude that the appeal is dismissed. Emma Brownless - INSPECTOR