Erection of a double garage with workshop

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 19 August 2026 by Ian McHugh DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 10 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6012034 2 Villa Real Cottages, Mansfield Road, Edwinstowe, NG21 9HE • 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 Edward Redfern against the decision of Newark and Sherwood District Council. • The application Ref is 25/00933/HOUSE. • The development proposed is the erection of a double garage with workshop. Procedural Matter 1. On 17 August 2026, the Government published the National Planning Policy Framework 2026 (NPPF). It does not contain any provisions that raise material issues in respect of this appeal and I have not found it necessary to seek comments from the main parties. Where relevant, I have made reference to the 2026 version in my reasoning below. Decision 2. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the site and its surroundings. Reasons 4. The proposed garage and workshop building would be positioned at the front of the appeal dwelling, adjacent to the site boundary with Mansfield Road. The property was formerly two dwellings, which has now been converted into one. It is situated in open countryside, beyond the main built-up area of Edwinstowe. 5. The house is set well back from the road, consequently, the front garden area is relatively deep and wide. It is partly screened by hedging and other vegetation which has been planted along the boundary with Mansfield Road. A small detached single storey garage is located close to the front boundary on the opposite side of the front garden. Generally, there are no other buildings that abut the highway boundary that are evident along this stretch of Mansfield Road. 6. The proposed garage and workshop would be a relatively large building at 9.0m wide and 5.6m tall at its widest and highest points. It would be constructed of red brick with terracotta roof tiles. These would match and be in character with the dwelling. Appeal Decision 6012034 2 7. The Council contends that the proposal would appear incongruous and out of character with the area, because of its design, scale and siting. The decision notice cites a conflict with Core Policy 9 of the Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy and with Policies DM5 and DM6 of the Newark and Sherwood Amended Allocations and Development Management DPD. 8. These policies seek to ensure (amongst other things) that the design of new development is of a high standard and has regard to the character and landscape of the area, including the open character of the countryside. These requirements are also reflected in the guidance contained in the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document – Householder Development. 9. In addition, Policy DP3 of the NPPF 2026 states that development proposals should respond to their context so that they integrate with and enhance their surroundings. 10. The Council points to the appeal site being within the Birklands Wood Estate landscape character zone. The Council considers that this reinforces the requirements to respect the rural character of the area, including building design, scale and materials. 11. I have given careful consideration to the design, appearance and the proposed siting of the building and I have noted that it would be partially screened by the existing vegetation along the site frontage. Furthermore, I am not persuaded that it would have a significant impact on the appearance of the wider landscape or character. I have also noted that the size of the building is dictated by the appellant’s requirement to house four vehicles. 12. However, the building, as proposed, would appear as a large, somewhat bulky structure that would have a significant impact on the openness and appearance of the site frontage. Its overall height and width would result in a structure that would be overly dominant and at odds with the overall rural character of the property. Consequently, I consider that the proposal would conflict with the provisions of the Development Plan, as referred to above. 13. I note that the Council had invited amended plans, but these were not submitted. In my opinion, the appellant may wish to pursue this option with the Council and consider an amended design. Conclusion 14. For the reasons given above, it is concluded that the appeal be dismissed. Ian McHugh INSPECTOR