Retention of existing outbuilding

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 9 December 2025 by F Bradford BA (Hons) MRTPI Decision by John Morrison BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 12th March 2026 Appeal Ref: 6001381 13 Wallenger Avenue, Havering, Romford RM2 6EP • 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 Mrs Judith Yung against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Havering. • The application Ref is P0035.25. • The development is described as the retention of existing outbuilding. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for development described as the retention of existing outbuilding at 13 Wallenger Avenue, Havering, Romford RM2 6EP in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P0035.25 and subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted is shown on drawing numbers SD0013/PL 01 REV A, 02 REV A, 03 REV B, and 04 REV A. 2) The outbuilding hereby permitted shall not be used other than for purposes incidental to the dwelling known as 13 Wallenger Avenue and as it is shown on the plans hereby approved. Appeal Procedure 2. The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. Preliminary Matter and Main Issues 3. The development has been completed. I have considered it in regard to main issues accordingly which is its effect on a) the character and appearance of the area; and b) the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with particular regard to outlook. Reasons for the Recommendation Character and Appearance 4. The Council does not explicitly mention the effect of the development in the above terms but does state that it appears as a visually intrusive feature within the rear garden environment. In this respect, the appeal site is a rear garden, flanked by two others and backing onto a number that serve dwellings facing Pemberton Road. This typical suburban layout of mostly detached and semidetached two storey dwellings features single storey outbuildings, confined generally to the far rear end Appeal Planning Officer 6001381 2 of gardens. They vary in their scale, height, land take and outward appearance. Some are larger, in the cumulative sense, than the appeal building. In this context, the development does not appear out of place. In fact, quite the opposite. As such, I cannot agree that it is as the Council suggest. 5. With this in mind, the development does not harm the character and appearance of the area. As such, it complies with Policy 26 of the Havering Local Plan 2016-2031 (2021) (HLP). Amongst other things, this seeks to ensure that high quality design is promoted that contributes to the creation of successful places. Living Conditions 6. The height of the outbuilding projects above the existing rear and side boundaries which are shared with neighbouring dwellings. Due to the arrangement of the outbuilding within the appeal site, it is set substantially away from the shared boundary of Number 11 Wallenger Avenue (No 11) and is not as such a dominant addition along the boundary. 7. The bulk of the outbuilding is sited along the shared boundary with Number 15 Wallenger Avenue (No 15). However, it is located towards the rear end of this boundary and is also set back from it. As such, whilst the development is visible by the occupants of No 15, it does not create a dominant addition to the outlook of the dwelling of No 15, nor conditions of overbearing when enjoying their garden. The latter is reinforced by the placement of the patio at No 15 meaning it is unlikely the primary area of garden enjoyment is sited next to the development. Therefore, any effects arising from the visual prominence of the outbuilding does not result in material harm to the enjoyment of the garden or outlook from the dwelling of the occupants of No 15 by way of overbearing. 8. The side of the outbuilding is similarly located along the rear boundary of the site shared by 37 Pemberton Avenue (No 37). However, it was observed on my site visit that No 37 has an outbuilding which is sited in a location mirroring that of the appeal scheme. As such, the outbuilding is largely obscured from the occupants of No 37. 9. The development, although large, does not result in harm to the outlook of the occupants of Nos 11, 15 or 37 by way of an overbearing impact from within respective dwellings or their areas of outdoor enjoyment. As such, I find no conflict with Policy 7 of the HLP which, among other things, aims to ensure development does not result in unacceptable conditions to privacy or outlook. Other Matters 10. The Council raised concerns that planning approval of this development would result in the setting of a precedent which would eventually lead to the reduction in the character and appearance of the area. However, development that does not accord with the provisions of permitted development requires express planning permission. Therefore, any forthcoming applications for similar development would be considered by them on a case by case basis. In any event, the specific development associated with this appeal does not in itself result in harm following an assessment as to its site specific effects. Which may be different in each case. 11. There were also substantive concerns from the Council’s members in regard to privacy. In this respect, the building is single storey and the floor level is set only Appeal Planning Officer 6001381 3 modestly above the garden level. Its only windows face into the host dwellings garden and are thus some distance away from the neighbouring garden at No 11 where there is also an intervening close boarded fence. Any views form the building would be very similar to those from the existing garden, they would be of the far end of No 11’s garden overall and interrupted in any event by said fence. The door to the building faces the host dwelling. There is another fence and substantial planting between it and the garden to No 15. With this and the above in mind, I find that the development does not harm the living conditions of the immediate adjacent occupants with regard to privacy. Conditions 12. As the development appears to have been completed, a time condition is not necessary. Although I have, for enforcement purposes, identified the approved plans. Whilst a separate residential unit has not been applied for and is therefore not before me to consider, the description of development is not in itself precise enough to secure the use of the outbuilding as incidental. A condition ensuring such is therefore necessary. The context of the outbuilding means that additional fenestration would not result in a material difference to conditions on site, taking into account my findings. Restricting further windows would not therefore be necessary. Conclusion and Recommendation 13. For the reasons given above, the scheme accords with the development plan. I therefore recommend the appeal should be allowed. Finlay Bradford APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 14. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted, subject to the conditions set out above. John Morrison INSPECTOR