Attached garage to front

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 25 June 2026 by D Cleary MTCP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 09 July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6009927 12 Athelstan Road, Worksop, Nottinghamshire S80 1AJ • 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 Mr Dale Gray against the decision of Bassetlaw District Council. • The application Ref is 25/01390/HSE. • The development proposed is described as the erection of an attached garage to front. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. In the banner above I have taken the description of development from the decision notice of the Council. This is because it more accurately describes the proposed development. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the building and area. Reasons 4. No.12 Athelstan Road is a two-storey detached brick and tile dwelling set back from the street behind a hardsurfaced parking area. The surrounding area is predominantly residential. While dwellings at this end of the street vary in design, the wider street exhibits greater uniformity. A consistent characteristic is the set-back of dwellings behind low front boundaries, creating a clear building line and a general sense of openness. Forward projections along Athelstan Road are typically modest and appear visually proportionate. 5. The proposal is for a single-storey front extension with a hipped roof. Its substantial forward projection would bring built form noticeably closer to Athelstan Road, disrupting the established building line of the dwelling and its neighbours. The extension’s scale and proximity to the street would create a prominent and incongruous feature that erodes the area’s openness. Given that front projections along the street are generally modest, the development would appear out of context and harmful to the character of this part of Athelstan Road. 6. Although the extension would be lower than the existing dwelling, it would elongate the building in a way that appears visually discordant. Its prominence from the Appeal Decision 6009927 2 street would further emphasise its scale, resulting in a visually dominant addition to the dwelling. 7. I recognise that the dwelling has no existing garage and that the extension would meet the appellant’s operational needs. I also acknowledge the lack of opportunity to provide a garage to the side or rear. However, these private benefits do not outweigh the permanent harm that would arise to the character and appearance of the area. Parking on driveways is common locally, and I am not persuaded that the proposal would reduce visual clutter to any meaningful degree. In addition, there is no evidence before me to suggest that storage for household items could not be accommodated to the rear. Finally, the absence of amenity concerns is neutral in my assessment. 8. For the above reasons, the development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the building and area. Therefore, the development fails to comply with Policy ST33 of the Bassetlaw Local Plan 2020-2038, which seeks to deliver high-quality design that responds positively to local context. Conclusion 9. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed. D Cleary INSPECTOR