Single storey outbuilding within rear garden

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 17 April 2026 by Victor Callister BA(Hons) PGC(Oxon) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 05 May 2026 Appeal Ref: 6005747 48 Castle Avenue, Chingford, Waltham Forest, E4 9QD • 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 S Hossein against the decision of the London Borough of Waltham Forest Council. • The application Ref is 252533. • The development is a single storey outbuilding within rear garden. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matters 2. This appeal relates to development that has already been carried out. As the application is retrospective, I have considered the submission accordingly. 3. Although both the Council officer’s report and the appellant’s statement refer to the appeal dwelling as semi-detached, from my site visit its is apparent that the appeal dwelling is a detached property and I have considered it as such accordingly. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect on the living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers. Reasons 5. The appeal dwelling is a detached two storey house located at the corner of Castle Avenue and Falmouth Road. The development that is the subject of this appeal is a single storey detached outbuilding located in the bottom corner of the rear garden. This is brick built with a tiled pitched roof with gable ends. The rear gable of the outbuilding is 4.6 metres long and 3.7 metres tall and is positioned directly adjacent to the side boundary that it shares with the neighbouring property at 46 Castle Avenue (No.46) and is located 1.2 metres from the existing rear wall of a single storey outshoot with a mono-pitch roof at the rear of the appeal dwelling that also abuts the boundary with No.46. 6. The immediate local area of the appeal dwelling is already relatively tightly developed. The rear garden of No.46 is already partly enclosed to its rear by the gable flank of the two storey house at 12 Falmouth Avenue (No.12) and the mono- pitched outshoot at the appeal dwelling. Due to the extent and height of the gable of the outbuilding and its position on the boundary, it is particularly apparent from Appeal Decision 6005747 2 the rear garden and rear rooms of No.46. This adds substantially to the enclosure of the rear of No.46, particularly its rear garden and rear rooms. 7. The presence of the outbuilding on the boundary, its extent and the increased sense of enclosure to No.46 results in it having an overbearing effect on the garden and rear rooms of No.46, causing a significant loss of outlook. The effect on the occupiers of this neighbouring dwelling is oppressive and detrimental to their living conditions. 8. The appellant has drawn my attention to other detached outbuildings in the local area including reference to a planning permission1 issued. Whist these may relate to outbuildings that appear larger than the proposal they do not have the same proximity to the side boundary with neighbouring properties and have a minimal effect on the enclosure of these neighbouring properties, as such they differ significantly in this regard from the appeal development. These would have been considered on their own merits at the time of their approval, as I have done with the appeal development, which is a main tenet of the planning system. I have therefore only afforded these little weight in my considerations. 9. For the reasons given above the appeal development results in substantial harm to the living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers. This is contrary to Policy 57 of the Waltham Forest Local Plan - LP1 (2024). Amongst other matters, this seeks development that avoids harmful impacts on living conditions from enclosure and loss of outlook. 10. Whilst the appeal development provides additional space for the occupiers of the appeal dwelling, this is primarily a private benefit. I find that this benefit does not outweigh the harm I have identified. Conclusion 11. The appeal is dismissed. Victor Callister INSPECTOR 1 Planning Ref:17991