Shed Forward of the Main Dwelling Retrospective Planning Appeal Success in Hart District Council

Описание: From Refusal to Victory: How HEAL Planning Helped Secure Approval for a Modest Outbuilding

Why Hart District Council Refused the Retrospective Application
The Council took issue with the design and positioning of the enclosed shed, arguing that it would appear discordant, out of keeping with the area, and would disrupt the visual harmony of the street. Specifically, they cited concerns over the building’s forward siting, which they claimed would create an uncomfortable visual relationship with surrounding properties and harm the character and appearance of the area.

What the Planning Inspector Said
The Inspector visited the site on 20th February 2025 and issued their decision on 7th March—overturning the Council’s refusal.
The Inspector found that although the shed is located forward of the main dwelling and partly visible above the timber fence from the road, it was neither imposing nor incongruous. It was described as a modest outbuilding, clearly ancillary in both form and function.
They also noted that:
• Garden frontages along Moore Road vary significantly, and many have tall boundary enclosures, meaning there is no strong visual uniformity.
• The appeal property has ample frontage space, allowing the shed to sit comfortably within the plot.
• The development caused no harm to local character or appearance, and as such, was found to be fully compliant with:
o Policy NBE9 of the Hart Local Plan
o Saved Policy GEN1 of the 1996–2006 Hart District Local Plan
o The National Planning Policy Framework’s guidance on well-designed places
As the development was retrospective, the Inspector concluded that no planning conditions were necessary.

The Outcome
The appeal was allowed, and planning permission was granted. Our client now retains the enclosed shed with peace of mind, knowing it is fully authorised.

#planningappeal #planningpermission #heartdistrictcouncil