What gets approved: underground garage and car lift planning applications in England

Headline findings

• 28 applications for underground garages, basement parking or car lifts at private homes were found in 3,658 records screened across six planning authorities.
• 71% approved at the first decision. 17 of the 24 decided applications were approved. One refusal was overturned on appeal, which takes the final rate to 75%.
• One in seven was withdrawn. Four of the 28 applications were withdrawn before a decision.
• Refusals turned on the setting, missing evidence or what shows above ground. Green Belt, ancient woodland and heritage settings, lift noise and woodland evidence, and bulk or overlooking elsewhere in the scheme. The one refusal aimed at subterranean garages themselves was overturned on appeal.
• Car lifts are rare in the registers. Four applications named a car lift. Two were approved, one refused and one withdrawn. The refusal cited missing evidence on lift noise.
• Materials and ecology lead the conditions. Of 17 permissions with a notice online, 11 carried a materials condition and 8 an ecology or biodiversity condition.

Method

We searched the public planning registers of six planning authorities, all on Idox Public Access: Buckinghamshire, Cotswold District, the South Downs National Park Authority, the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, Surrey Heath and Chichester.

The search covered applications received from 1 January 2020 to 19 October 2026. We searched each register's description field for the words basement, underground, subterranean, sunken, vault and lift, and the phrases car lift and vehicle lift. Buckinghamshire was also searched for car lifts, garage lift, vehicle lifts and car stacker. Together the searches returned 3,658 distinct records.

Each description was screened by rule and then read by eye. We counted an application if it proposed a garage, parking area or car storage explicitly below ground, or a car lift, at a private home. That includes basement garages under new houses and garages built under the grounds.

We left out flats, commercial, care, hotel and mixed-use schemes, and garages that simply had a basement beneath them. We also left out applications that only follow an earlier permission: condition discharges, non-material amendments, variations of condition, certificates of lawfulness, consultations, and listed building consents that duplicate a planning application.

For every application we recorded the authority, the year received, a short description, the decision and any appeal outcome shown on the register. We read the decision notice for 27 of the 28. One had no notice online.

Councils we could not search

We also tried Elmbridge, Runnymede and Cheshire East. Elmbridge's register refused automated access. Runnymede's search sits behind a bot challenge, and Cheshire East's behind a captcha. We did not try to get round these, so those councils are not in the study.

Results by planning authority

Buckinghamshire alone holds 17 of the 28. Numbers for the other authorities are small, so read their rates as examples, not trends. In the South Downs, both refusals were the same proposal, submitted twice.

Results by type

By year received

Why applications were refused

Seven applications were refused. Most refusals gave more than one reason, so the counts below add up to more than seven.

• Design or character: 4 of 7. A garage or extension too prominent or not subordinate to the house, a plot subdivision out of keeping with the area, or a garage form judged uncharacteristic of the district.
• Green Belt: 2 of 7. Both found the proposal inappropriate development with a loss of openness.
• Ancient woodland: 2 of 7. The same proposal twice, refused for lack of evidence that an irreplaceable habitat would not be harmed.
• Neighbours overlooked: 2 of 7. Both about windows or balconies elsewhere in the scheme.
• Access, parking or highway safety: 2 of 7.
• Heritage: 1 of 7. Harm to a non-designated heritage asset.
• Car lift noise: 1 of 7. Not enough evidence that the lift would not disturb neighbours.

In the decision notices, the language is specific. One Green Belt refusal found the proposal to be “inappropriate development, which by definition is harmful to the Green Belt” (PL/22/1418/FA). The car lift refusal said there was insufficient information to show the lift “would not have an adverse impact on the quiet enjoyment” of neighbours (24/06161/FUL). The woodland refusals turned on parking sited “within 15 meters of its boundary” (SDNP/23/04614/HOUS).

The one appeal

One refusal was appealed, and the appeal was allowed. The council had called the design of the “subterranean garages” uncharacteristic of the district (20/03559/FUL). The inspector disagreed with how the parking had been described. On a sloping site, it was “essentially cut and fill and not the creation of an underground structure” (appeal APP/F1610/D/22/3312882).

What the conditions ask for

We read the conditions on 17 of the 18 permissions, including the appeal decision. Counts show how many permissions carried at least one condition on each theme.

Two conditions show how closely councils watch the ground. On an estate car park built below ground, the council required a statement on “the method of disposal of the spoil material arising from the excavation” before work began (PL/20/1463/FA). On an underground garage in a Cotswold village, new stone had to match the existing wall, and “all pointing shall be finished using a lime mortar” (25/00316/FUL).

What this means if you are planning one

• Bring the evidence at the start. Three of the seven refusals cited missing information, on woodland harm and on lift noise. A noise report for a car lift, and a tree and ecology survey, cost far less than a refusal.
• Keep what shows above ground small. The Green Belt and design refusals were about visible bulk and openness, not the rooms below.
• Expect conditions on materials, drainage, levels and spoil. Plan for them in the programme.
• Check the setting first. Green Belt, ancient woodland and heritage settings drove the hardest refusals.

Our planning permission guide explains each of these tests, and our guide to a garage under the garden covers trees, soil and drainage when a gallery goes under the grounds.

Limits of the data

• The sample is small: 28 applications from six authorities. Treat the rates as indicative.
• A description search finds only what applicants wrote. A scheme that hides a garage inside a wider description may be missed.
• Appeal outcomes are only those shown on each register. We did not search the Planning Inspectorate separately.
• Three councils could not be searched, as set out in the method.
• This is research, not legal or planning advice.

Using this data

Journalists, councils and researchers are welcome to quote these figures with a link to this page. Please cite it as: BELOW, What gets approved: underground garage and car lift planning applications in England, 19 October 2026. The planning reference behind any count is available on request, through the consultation form.