Mansfield District Council appeal evidence
Refused over character and appearance in Mansfield?
Learn how selected examples describe appearance concerns and compare them with your refusal notice.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 6 of 8
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 1
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 5
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 5
- of 6 matched records
AI-assisted. Cited sources and wording were checked before publication. Based on 5 source-linked examples shown below. Review method and limits.
Planning Data area point: Mansfield LPA (53.17075, −1.172767). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Mansfield District Council appeal findings
Mansfield fences, street scenes and extension scale
The selected examples include both outcomes, but a dismissed appeal from the matched local set is not displayed. The allowed comparison is a wooden fence. The extension example also raised neighbours’ living conditions; only its appearance conclusion is used here.
Counted against appeals
What counted against Mansfield fences and extensions
Extension scale stood out
The Inspector concluded that the extension’s design, scale and how much it stood out significantly harmed the host property and area.
Fences harmed the street scene
Inspectors concluded that the front fence and a rear-and-side boundary fence would harm the street scene. The latter conclusion named its siting, design and materials.
Later removal did not solve harm
A condition requiring later fence removal did not address the harm soon enough because the nursery use might continue for a considerable period.
Helped or needed
What helped the wooden fence
Natural wood blended with planting
The wooden panels were seen as a natural material that blended to some degree with nearby trees and garden planting.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal notice identify design, scale or how much it stands out?
- Does it say which part of the street scene is harmed?
- Does it explain why proposed materials would not blend with nearby planting?
The selected examples concern fences and an extension, so their facts may not match your proposal. These decisions do not predict another result.
Appeal evidence examples
Compare allowed and dismissed appeal reasoning
Each example separates the development, the Inspector-stated issue that selected it, and the reasoning from the decision. Compare the facts as well as the outcome: these examples do not predict how a different proposal would be decided.
Allowed appeal examples
1 example
17 April 2023 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a wooden fence that runs along the boundary of the property. This includes separating the side of the property with neighbouring properties and also along the front of the property (already completed).
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this case is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Further to the above, the wooden panels used for the development do not appear incongruous in their setting but rather, as a natural material, appear to some degree to blend in with the nearby trees and with the planting within and around the appeal property’s garden. 10.Taking all of the above into account, I find that the development does not harm the character and appearance of the area and is not contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework or to Local Plan1 Policies P1, P2 and P6, which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
29 August 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the erection of a 1.8 metre high fence mad up with concrete posts and plinths and wood panels to front of property.
Issue identified by the Inspector
It is considered that the main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, in particular the streetscene.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the reasons given, it is concluded that the proposed development would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area, in particular the streetscene, and, as such, it would conflict with Policy P2 of the Mansfield District Local Plan (LP). Amongst other matters, this policy refers to developments being appropriate to its context in terms of materials, creating attractive streetscapes and spaces.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
12 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
Single storey side extension with existing garage conversion. Two storey rear extension, with loft conversion.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposal on the: • Character and appearance of the host property and the area; and • Living conditions of nearby residents with regards to privacy and outlook.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Drawing the above together, the design, scale and prominence of the proposal would lead to significant harm to the character and appearance of the host property and the area. The proposal would therefore be contrary to the character, appearance and attractive development requirements of Policies P2 and P6 of the Mansfield District Local Plan 2020 (the Local Plan). The proposal would also be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) regarding achieving well-designed places.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
26 January 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘erection of 1.8m high boundary fence (retrospective)’.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the fence on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The appeal site does not affect the historic environment or an area designated for its landscape quality. In addition, it does not result in an adverse effect on the living conditions of nearby residents. However, these are neutral factors that do not outweigh the harm that I have found. Furthermore, although a condition could be imposed to require the removal of the fence at a time that the nursery use ceases, in a similar manner to the Maidstone appeal decision2 provided by the appellant, that may not take place for a considerable period, if at all. Therefore, the identified harm to the character and appearance of the area would persist and would not be addressed in the short term.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 2
18 September 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
to erect new fencing around edge of boundary to rear and side of house alongside [address].
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in this case are the effect of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the street scene; • highway safety in regards to visibility for drivers, pedestrians and other road users.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Therefore, I find that the proposed development, by reason of its siting, design and materials, would significantly harm the character and appearance of the street scene and would be contrary to development plan policies P1, P2 and P6 of the Mansfield District Local Plan 2013-2033 (2020) which together seek to ensure that development is well designed.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2