Appeal 3321282
Public case and site metadata stored from the official casework database, including fields that were empty in the source release.
A clearer next step
See how Inspectors approached issues like yours
Bring your planning decision into a private workspace. We separate the disputed points, then match them with source-located Inspector reasoning from similar appeals.
- See which issues the decision appears to turn on
- Compare the facts and open the full appeal records
One private comparison
How the refusal review worksOne-off service · No subscription
Similar appeals are evidence to inspect, not a prediction of your outcome.
Official decision document
The decision, section by section
5 sections
Read the development description and the Inspector’s text from the official decision PDF in source order. Source headings are retained where available. Personal and contact details are removed by an automated privacy filter; this is source material, not Rules for You analysis.
Section 01
Development description
a single-storey double garage.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the appearance of the streetscene.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal property is a part brick, part rendered detached bungalow, which is situated in a residential area of the town. Properties in the vicinity of the appeal site vary in terms of their appearance and scale. However, a common characteristic of [address] is that the front gardens are devoid of any buildings. This gives the streetscene a relatively spacious and verdant appearance.
The proposal is to erect a double garage in the front garden area. It would be built relatively close to the road frontage. The external walls would be rendered and it would have a pantiled roof. The garage would sit at a lower level than the existing dwelling because the site slopes down towards the road. However, no sections or site levels have been submitted.
The Council considers that the proposal would be incongruous in the streetscene and the use of render would not be compatible with character of [address]. It states that the development would conflict with Policies P2 and P6 of the Mansfield District Local Plan (LP). These policies seek to ensure (amongst other things) that development reflects the character of the area and that it would not have an adverse effect on the streetscene. I consider these accord with paragraph 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2023, which contains similar provisions.
The appellant points to there being no objections from neighbours and that the garage could be screened by a wall and planting and the external walls of the garage could be brick rather than render. My attention has also been drawn to other garages in front gardens on [address] and [address] West.
I accept that there are examples of garages in front gardens in the local area. However, my decision is based solely on the impact of the proposed garage on the [address] streetscene. Regarding the use of render, I am not persuaded that it would be unduly harmful, given the use of render on the existing dwelling.
Nevertheless, the proposed garage would be a relatively large structure that would be unduly prominent and at odds with the prevailing open character and appearance of the streetscene. Although, the erection of a wall and planting may help to partly screen the garage, a wall of any substance could also be out of character with the other frontages along [address], which are enclosed by low brick or stone walls. Therefore, I consider that the proposal would have an unacceptably harmful effect on the appearance of the streetscene. Consequently, it would conflict with Policies P2 and P6 of the LP, as referred to in paragraph 5 above.
Section 05
Conclusion
For the reasons given above, it is concluded that the appeal be dismissed.
Planning inspector and document dates
The official casework attribution is grouped under a one-way keyed hash and shown only by its local identifier. Decision-letter dates and page references are extracted by fixed first-page rules and checked against that authoritative record.
Appeal Decision
- Extracted inspector · page 1
- Inspector attribution ID 203No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 2 October 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 7 September 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3321282
- Application reference
- 2023/0094/hha
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Mansfield District Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000174
Casework details
The casework, procedure, development and linking details supplied by the official record.
- Casework type
- Householder (HAS)
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development type
- Householder developments
- Appeal type reason
- 1. Refused planning permission
- Appeal reason
- Refusal
- Type detail
- Planning Appeals - Full
- Jurisdiction
- Transferred
- Link status
- Not Linked
Site and development
Published appeal-site measurements and planning designations, without the withheld precise location fields.
- Site area
- Not recorded
- Floor space
- 36 m²
- Number of residences
- 0
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- No
- Affects setting of a listed building
- Not recorded
- Historic building grant made
- Not recorded
- Relates to a conservation area
- Not recorded
- Flooding is an issue
- Not recorded
- Site within an AONB
- Not recorded
- Site within an SSSI
- Not recorded
Decision and dates
The published outcome and every imported case date.
- Official decision
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 29 April 2023
- Valid date
- 28 July 2023
- Start date
- 11 August 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 26 April 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 2 October 2023
Case administration
Published recovery, call-in, costs and enforcement information for this case.
- Redetermined
- No
- Bespoke
- No
- Date recovered
- Not recorded
- Date not recovered or derecovered
- Not recorded
- Call-in date
- Not recorded
- Costs applied for
- No
- Enforcement grounds count
- Not recorded
- Enforcement grounds
- Not recorded
Source and catalogue history
When this record appeared in the rolling official release and when the catalogue stored it.
- Source
- Planning Inspectorate casework database
- Source data system
- Horizon
- Dataset status
- Current release
- Catalogue record ID
- 39574
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:27
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21