Development proposed is: Single storey side extension with existing garage conversion. Two storey rear extension, with loft conversion

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 21 May 2026 by David Cross BA(Hons) PgDip(Dist) TechIOA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 12 June 2026 Appeal Ref: 6001348 145 Berry Hill Road, Mansfield, NG18 4RT • 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 Miss Klaudia Dziak against the decision of Mansfield District Council. • The application Ref is 2025/0482/HHA. • The development proposed is: Single storey side extension with existing garage conversion. Two storey rear extension, with loft conversion. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. 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. Reasons Character and Appearance 3. The appeal site consists of a detached dwelling with a large garden located in a pleasant suburban area. The site is a corner plot close to the junction with Berry Hill Road and Berry Hill Lane. Due to this corner location, the appeal site is in a prominent position in the streetscape, including views of the side and rear of the property. 4. The appeal proposal includes a substantial 3-floor rear extension. This includes full-height windows on the ground and first floor which do not respect the design of the windows of the host dwelling. The arched features of the first floor windows are also of an incongruous appearance compared to the windows of the host dwelling. Although nearby dwellings include arched design features, these are most commonly associated with entrances and do not establish a context for the prominence and number of these features on the appeal proposal. 5. The proposal also includes a number of box-like additions at roof level which would jar with the hipped roof design of the host dwelling. The level of the flat roof/wrap-around balcony also projects above the eaves of the host dwelling, which adds to the disjointed appearance of the proposal. The roof extensions would also be of a significant scale and bulk which would dominate the roof of the dwelling and would appear as disproportionate additions. The wrap-around Appeal Decision 6001348 2 balcony at roof level would also be out of character for this area. Although the roof extensions would not project above the highest ridge of the existing roof, this would do little, if anything, to mitigate for their unacceptable design and scale. 6. The use of materials such as a rendered finish and standing seam cladding on an extension of this scale would also contrast uncomfortably with the traditional materials on the host building and the wider area. Although the use of contrasting materials such as render may be acceptable in some circumstances, in this case the materials add to the clumsy and disjointed appearance of the proposal. 7. The proposed extensions would overwhelm the vernacular design of the host building, and would be visually incongruous compared to the traditional suburban character of the area. This harm would be exacerbated due to the prominent location of the site. 8. 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. Living Conditions 9. The proposal would include a balcony at the loft floor level extending around 3 sides of the rear extension. Due to the elevation of the balcony and the viewing angles it would enable, this would lead to an intrusive degree of overlooking of the rear gardens and windows of neighbouring properties on Berry Hill Road. Although the balcony would be set back from the site boundary, this would not be sufficient to overcome the intrusive degree of overlooking arising from the height of the balcony and the extent of views it would provide. 10. It may be possible to erect a screen on the balcony to prevent overlooking. But this would appear as an incongruous feature at roof level and would exacerbate the harm arising to character and appearance. 11. Windows and glazed doors on a side elevation at the first and loft floor levels would also enable intrusive overlooking of the rear gardens of neighbouring properties. The appellant has submitted amended plans removing these features, but this would not address the loss of privacy arising from the balcony. 12. The rear elevation of the host dwelling is set further beyond the main rear elevations of the neighbouring dwellings, and the rear extension would project significantly beyond this. The site also slopes down to the rear which would exacerbate the prominence of the rear extension. When combined with the height and bulk of the proposal, these factors would mean that the rear extension would have an unacceptable overbearing impact on the outlook from the rear of neighbouring dwellings. That would be the case even allowing for the setback of the rear extension from the site boundary and the intervening existing garage. 13. The Council has not referred to overshadowing or loss of light in its reason for refusal, and I have had regard to the Sun Study drawings submitted by the appellant. However, a lack of objection in relation to light does not lead me to a Appeal Decision 6001348 3 different conclusion in respect of the effect of the proposal on the outlook from nearby properties. 14. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal would lead to significant harm to the privacy and outlook of nearby residents. The proposal would therefore be contrary to the residential amenity requirements of Policies P6 and P7 of the Local Plan. The proposal would also be contrary to the Framework which seeks to achieve a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. Other Matters 15. Reference has been made to a 2-storey side extension at 127 Berry Hill Lane which is a similar corner plot opposite the appeal site, and which the appellant contends is of a similar volume as the appeal proposal. However, although the extension at No 127 is relatively large and has extensive areas of glazing at both ground and first floor level, it is of an understated design compared to the appeal proposal and is subordinate to the host building. The bulk and massing of the extension at No 127 is also of a lesser degree compared to the appeal proposal. Although there is extensive glazing on the extension at No 127, this is of an understated appearance and is located so as to mitigate potential loss of privacy to nearby properties. The circumstances of No 127 are therefore materially different to the appeal before me. I have also been referred to other examples of buildings and extensions, but it has not been demonstrated that the circumstances of those sites are a direct parallel to the appeal proposal. In any event, I have determined this appeal on its own merits. 16. The appellant sets out that the proposal would improve family accommodation, reduce the need for relocation and would enhance the property’s longevity. However, these benefits could be achieved by extensions of a more appropriate design and in any event would not outweigh the significant harm I have identified. 17. I note the frustrations expressed by the appellant in relation to the advice from the Council and the decision process leading up to this appeal. However, this is not a matter for this appeal which I have determined on its planning merits. Conclusion 18. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed. David Cross INSPECTOR