For a proposed garage conversion and first floor side extension
📊
See the success rate & inspector analytics
Free to view — just create an account, no payment needed.
Sign Up FreeTechnical Issues Heatmap
Residential Amenity
Open Space
Extensions
Inspector’s Reasoning
Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 23 June 2026
by Andrew Fuller BSc (Hons), Dip TP, MA, MRTPI, IHBC
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 23 July 2026
Appeal Ref: 6010058
31 Gladstone Close, Newport Pagnell, Milton Keynes MK16 0EU
• 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 Mr Waller against the decision of Milton Keynes City Council.
• The application Ref is PLN/2026/0645.
• The development is for a proposed garage conversion and first floor side extension.
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a proposed garage
conversion and first floor side extension at 31 Gladstone Close, Newport Pagnell,
Milton Keynes MK16 0EU in accordance with the terms of the application reference
PLN/2026/0645, subject to conditions set out in the attached schedule.
Preliminary Matters
2. The Council does not object to the garage conversion. From my site visit, that
element of the proposal would assimilate with the appearance of the surrounding
area.
3. The City Council has prepared the Milton Keynes City Plan 2025 Regulation 19 plan
for consultation (October 2025) (City Plan). Whilst at this stage, the emerging new
City Plan is advanced, it has yet to go through examination and therefore for the
purposes of this appeal I give the policies within it limited weight. The policies of the
City Plan do not introduce any new standards with regard to living conditions that
would alter my consideration of the main issue below.
Main Issue
4. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of
the occupiers of No 30 Gladstone Close, with particular reference to outlook from
the private garden area.
Reasons
5. The appeal site comprises a detached property in a modern cul-de-sac of houses
that are organised in a deeply staggered and informal layout. In the case of the
appeal site, it is set back entirely behind the adjacent neighbouring property at No
30 Gladstone Close. As such, the full extent of its flank elevation runs along the side
of the rear garden of that immediate neighbour.
6. The house is two-storey in height with a single-storey side section facing towards
No 30 mostly comprising a gable that sits shy of the house’s first floor eves, and a
short section of flat roofing behind it. The common boundary between the appeal
Appeal Decision 6010058
2
site and No 30 comprises a fence and the appeal property is set back from it behind
a side passageway.
7. The proposed first floor side extension would be set back from the front of the
house. It would form additional side walling starting around halfway up the front of
the existing single-storey roof slope, extending over the top of the gable, and with
the majority of it located behind it. There would be no side facing windows
overlooking the garden of No 30, and it would be capped with a hipped roof, with a
ridge in line with that on the main two-storey portion of the house.
8. The rear private garden to No 30 is enclosed to some degree by surrounding built
form, including that of the existing massing of the appeal property. Whilst modest,
the garden includes an external terraced area directly adjacent to the rear of the
house and further seating areas on the opposite and rear part of the garden. A
mature tree is also positioned so as to partly screen the appeal property.
9. On my site visit I visited the garden of No 30 from where I could experience the
relationship between the various areas within the garden and the appeal property.
Whilst the proposed extension would bring built form at first floor level closer to the
shared boundary, it’s massing would not significantly alter the presence of the
appeal property over this neighbouring garden. The shallow angle of the proposed
hipped roof would contribute towards minimising the impact of the massing from
many areas within the garden, particularly in close quarters.
10. From the terrace next to the house, where occupants could be expected to
frequently dwell, the proposed extension would be set further back. The enclosure
of this space would not be greatly altered, with the open gap between the houses
preserved. From the seating area on the opposite side of the garden, the distance is
generous and the profile of the existing house would be little altered. The seating
area to the rear of the garden would in part fall beyond the rear of the proposed
extension and again would benefit from the preserved gap between the properties in
views back towards the house.
11. The design of the proposal is blank and lacks articulation when viewed from the
garden of No 30. However, the overall visibility of this flank wall would be reduced
by the fence as well as screening offered by the tree. Moreover, its simple design
limits its presence in aspects from the neighbouring garden.
12. Correspondence confirms that existing neighbouring occupiers at No 30 raise no
objections with regards this main issue. However, future occupiers would be alert to
the relationship between the appeal proposal and the garden at No 30 and that this
would not greatly differ from this wider established context across the estate.
13. Overall, I conclude that the proposed development would not harm the living
conditions of the occupiers of No 30 Gladstone Close, with particular reference to
outlook from the private garden area. As such, it complies with Policy D5 of the
Plan:MK 2016-2031 (2019) which requires, amongst other matters for development
to protect a good standard of amenity and ensure the outlook afforded from private
garden areas is satisfactory for both existing and future occupants.
Conditions
14. The existing occupiers of No 30 Gladstone Close have raise no objection to the
appeal. However, they have requested that certain matters be addressed should the
Appeal Decision 6010058
3
development be allowed. These include hours of construction and prevention of
windows overlooking their property.
15. In addition to the standard time condition (1), I have imposed a condition requesting
that the development is carried out following the approved plans, in the interest of
certainty (2).
16. A condition is necessary requiring materials to match the existing house in the
interest of assimilating the development with the character and appearance of the
area (3). To preserve an acceptable level of privacy to the house and rear garden of
No 30 Gladstone Close, a condition preventing any new windows being inserted in
the side elevation of the proposal without planning permission is necessary (4).
Finally, to ensure that the construction phase of the development respects the living
conditions of nearby residents, a condition restricting hours of construction is
necessary (5).
17. I have considered suggested conditions by the occupiers of No 31 in respect of a
construction management plan. Based on the scale and extent of the proposed
development I do not consider such a condition would be reasonable in this
instance. Matters relating to dust control can be dealt with via other legislation and
any damage to boundary treatment would be a private matter.
Conclusion
18. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.
Andrew Fuller
INSPECTOR
Schedule of Conditions
1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from
the date of this decision.
2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with
drawing nos PL01 (Existing Site Location & Proposed Block Plan) and PL04
(Proposed Plans and Elevations).
3) The external materials of the extension hereby permitted shall match those
used in the existing dwelling.
4) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General
Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-
enacting that Order with or without modification), no windows shall be
constructed on the north side facing elevation.
5) Demolition or construction works shall take place only between 08:00 and
18:00 on Monday to Friday, 08:00 and 13:00 on Saturday and shall not take
place at any time on Sundays or on Bank or Public Holidays.
Expert Representation
Don't leave your appeal to chance.
Inspectors are inconsistent. We build a technical defense using precedents from our 182,000+ case archive.
No win, no fee Householder representation — you only pay if you win.