Appeal 6007552

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for 2no 8ft x 4ft sheds, side by side, in front garden of property at [site address] , Geldeston, Norfolk [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2026/0122, and the plans submitted with it, titled Site Location Plan; Block Plan (Scale 1:100); Block Plan Outbuildings (Scale 1:500); and [name].

The development description in the banner heading is taken from the application form. In the formal decision, I have amended the description for clarity and to omit wording that is not a description of development.

At time of my site visit, the sheds were in situ. This weighs neither for nor against the proposal which I have determined on the basis of the submitted plans.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, including the setting of the Geldeston Conservation Area (CA).

The appeal site is a dwelling plot containing a modern detached bungalow with a prominent garage projecting forward from the front elevation. The dwelling is set back from the street by a front garden and gravelled driveway and parking area.

The street scene comprises a mix of dwelling types, varying in age, form, and scale. There are some prominent dwellings and outbuildings sited close to the street. However, buildings are generally set back from the highway, behind gardens and driveways, providing a spacious character to dwelling plots.

To the west of the appeal site, a prominent tree belt and hedgerow run along the north side of [address] which, together with mature vegetation within surrounding gardens, contributes soft greenery and a sense of enclosure to the street scene.

The Geldeston Conservation Area Appraisal 2013 describes Geldeston as a medium sized village in a rural setting, which derives much of its character from the river valley landscape and its industrial, agricultural and residential history. Notably, the appraisal identifies two distinct character areas, one eighteenth century in origin, and a suburban, planned estate of mid-20th century public housing at its western edge.

The appeal site lies outside the CA, separated from its boundary by a neighbouring dwelling plot and the junction of [address]. The appeal site does not possess characteristic features of the CA nor contribute to its special interest, and the site’s contribution to the CA’s setting is limited.

The proposal relates to two timber sheds sited in the appeal property’s front garden, positioned next to one another with their low-pitched roofs forming an apex. The sheds are lower in height than the eaves of the existing garage and therefore appear modest in scale and subservient to the appeal property.

The sheds are sited parallel with the front elevation of the existing garage and span the plot to abut mature vegetation at the side boundary. A gate has been erected between the garage and sheds. This subdivides the front garden, creating a modest, enclosed courtyard space between the dwelling and garage.

The dwelling’s front gable remains clearly visible above the sheds, and therefore the siting of the sheds does not alter the perceived building line of the row of dwellings along [address]. The sheds are sited behind a wide, planted border and a car parking area of sufficient size to accommodate two cars, and therefore are set back considerably from the street. The siting of the sheds therefore retains the spacious and open appearance of the site’s frontage.

The rear side of the sheds is oriented toward the street and comprises horizontal timber planks, similar in appearance to a timber fence. The sheds are painted green to match the gate and garage door surround, blend in with boundary hedges, and complement the dwelling’s brown fenestration and fascia boards. The sheds do not appear contrasting or prominent as a consequence of their colour.

The decision notice refers to the removal of vegetation at the boundary. It is my understanding this was undertaken separately from the proposal and on the advice of a tree surgeon, since specimens were either overgrown, in poor condition, or dead. In autumn 2025, a hedge comprising a mix of native species was planted along the front boundary. In the medium to long term, the new hedge would reasonably be expected to mature and screen views into the appeal site.

This northern side of [address] has no pedestrian footway and boundary treatments within dwelling plots run up to the carriageway edge. This generally conceals the appeal site from long distance views in either direction. Views of the sheds would be experienced by users of the highway only when passing the site’s immediate frontage. Irrespective of the newly planted hedge, views of the sheds are highly localised, and the sheds are not visually prominent in the street scene.

Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires that, with respect to any buildings or other land in a conservation area, special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area. The proposal does not concern land or buildings in the CA. Nonetheless, paragraph 213 of the National Planning Policy Framework recognises that development within the setting of a heritage asset can harm the asset’s significance.

[address] provides a route into the CA, as set out above, the sheds would not be visually prominent. Intervisibility between the CA and appeal site would be limited by boundary treatments and vegetation. Therefore, the proposal would not harm, and thus would have a neutral effect on, the setting of the CA.

For the reasons set out above, I consider the sheds, through their scale, siting, and appearance would be in keeping with the domestic, residential character of the area, and would not result in a harmful concentration of built form. Therefore, the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the area.

The proposal would therefore comply with Policies 2 and 3 of the Greater Norwich Local Plan 2024 which requires proposals be designed to take account and avoid harm to heritage assets. In addition, the proposal would satisfy Policies DM3.4, DM3.8, and DM4.10 of the South Norfolk Local Plan Development [name] 2015, which require proposals maintain the character and appearance of buildings, the street scene and surroundings, respect adjoining structures, spaces, routes and local landscape, and the historic environment.

Approximately 150m to the east of the site, and situated to the south of [address], is Danegelts, a [name] listed building dating from the 16th century, which is a 1.5 storey, timber-framed former hall house, rendered and colour washed, with a steeply pitched pantile roof. The building’s special interest is derived from its age and vernacular architecture. Due to the significant visual and spatial separation by the distance, and intervening highway and dwelling plots, the proposal would have a neutral impact on the setting of the listed building.

Since the development has been implemented, the standard condition imposing a time limit for commencement is not necessary. In the interests of certainty, I have identified the approved plans in the formal decision.

For the reasons given above, having regard to the development plan taken as a whole and all other relevant material considerations, I conclude the appeal should be allowed.