202 Mansfield Road, Selston: appeal 6011373 dismissed

Decision: dismissed, 7 September 2026
Decided by: Planning Inspector: Richard Snow
Authority: Ashfield (East Midlands)
Appeal reference: 6011373
Application reference: V/2026/0010
Procedure: written representations
Development: Dormer bungalow in the garden of 202 Mansfield Road (corner of Portland Road)
Homes: 1
Site context: inside settlement
Green Belt: No
Framework applied: August 2026 NPPF
Determinative policies: S4(1), S4(2)(c), DP3(1), DP3(3)
Development plan policies: Ashfield Local Plan Review 2002 ST1(a)(b), HG5, Jacksdale Underwood Selston (JUS-t) Neighbourhood Plan 2017-2032 NP2
Main issues: character and appearance

Summary

A dormer bungalow in the garden of a corner-plot bungalow in Selston, Nottinghamshire. Dismissed on character grounds alone. It would sit forward of the established building lines at an open junction and cut the Portland Road sight line that the neighbourhood plan singles out. The inspector used the DP3(1) → DP3(3) → S4(2) chain to hold that the S4 benefits were substantially outweighed.

Issues and findings

Transition. "The parties were invited to comment and the comments received have been taken into account" (DL ¶3).
Character — NP2, ST1, HG5; DP3(1): FAIL. "its prominence on the corner would detract from the open character around the junction" (DL ¶10). "the proposal would extend beyond the established building line, interrupting the line of sight along the road and would be an obtrusive incursion into the street scene" (DL ¶11).
Hedge screening rejected. "the long-term retention and maintenance of this hedgerow could not be assured with any certainty … it is likely that future occupiers would seek to reduce its height" (DL ¶13). That the dwelling could go nowhere else on the plot was not "a convincing reason to allow the appeal" (DL ¶13).
Neutral matters. No neighbour amenity, parking, tree or technical objections: "all neutral factors" (DL ¶14).

Planning balance

Plan conflict given "significant weight" as the policies are "generally consistent with the Framework in so far as it seeks well-designed places which are visually attractive and sympathetic to local character" (DL ¶19). S4 stated (DL ¶20). "Policy DP3.3 confirms that development proposals should be refused if, without clear justification, they conflict with paragraph 1 of Policy DP3 and that substantial weight should be given to compliance with relevant development plan policies when assessing the design quality of proposals. In these circumstances, Policy S4.2 of the Framework confirms that the benefits of approving development are likely to be substantially outweighed by adverse effects" (DL ¶21). "the benefits of the proposal would be substantially outweighed by its adverse effects" (DL ¶22). Plan-led conclusion (DL ¶23).

What made the difference

A site-specific townscape harm with neighbourhood-plan backing: the NP expressly names Portland Road's sight lines as defining character, and the dwelling would sit forward of the building line on a prominent, open corner. Once DP3(1) failed without clear justification, DP3(3) made it a "should be refused" policy, and S4(2)(c) turned that into a presumptive S4 failure. The benefits of one family home were not weighed as substantial. A dwelling set back in line with No 202 would have avoided the DP3(1) failure.

Transferable points

A DP3(1) conflict without clear justification engages DP3(3) ("should be refused"), which via S4(2) makes the benefits "likely to be substantially outweighed" (DL ¶21). A clean template for design refusals within settlements.
Neighbourhood-plan character descriptions (sight lines, building lines) carry significant weight as Framework-consistent design policy (DL ¶¶8, 16, 19).
Screening by existing hedges on a small plot is discounted, as future occupiers will cut them back (DL ¶13).
"Nowhere else on the plot to put it" is not a justification (DL ¶13).
Unevidenced council precedents get no positive weight (DL ¶15).
Drafting note: the S4 "benefits" are only said to "attract weight" (DL ¶17); HO7 and L2(1)(d) substantial weight are not mentioned.

Policy findings

Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.

Policy	Finding	Weight	Note
DP3(1)	fail		siting forward of building lines on a prominent corner breaks the NP-identified sight line along Portland Road and the open junction character (DL 10-12, 21)
DP3(3)	fail		conflict with DP3(1) without clear justification → refuse; substantial weight to compliance with plan design policies (DL 21)
S4(2)(c)	fail		not cited by limb; DL 21 says "In these circumstances, Policy S4.2 … confirms that the benefits … are likely to be substantially outweighed" — i.e. DP3(3) is a 'should be refused' policy (DL 21)
S4(1)	fail		benefits substantially outweighed (DL 22)
ALPR ST1, HG5; JUS-t NP2	conflict	significant	plan policies consistent with Framework aim of well-designed places sympathetic to local character (DL 16, 19)
HO7	benefit		not cited by code; family dwelling on a small site in a settlement plus construction jobs "attract weight", weight unquantified (DL 17)

Key facts

Garden of a set-back bungalow at a prominent junction; open space opposite on Portland Road (DL 5-7)
Neighbourhood plan names Portland Road as an example of long sight lines and says bungalows do not reflect Selston character (DL 8)
Split-level 3-level dwelling sited forward of No 202, closer to both frontages; garden to front, parking to rear (DL 9)
Appellant relied on boundary hedge screening, part of which would be removed; retention not assured (DL 13)
Council precedents given no weight for lack of detail (DL 15); costs application made (separate decision)

Related decisions

PINS-6010557

Sources

This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.