Romford, Havering - A debate over a retrospective planning application for an outbuilding at 13 Wallenger Avenue has ignited concerns about overdevelopment in the Squirrels Heath ward.

The Havering Council Planning Committee convened on Thursday, 14 August 2025, to discuss application P0035.25, which seeks permission for the retention of an existing outbuilding. The application was brought before the committee following a call-in from Councillor Christine Vickery, who voiced concerns over backland development, overdevelopment, the building's character, loss of privacy, noise, and its impact on neighbouring properties. Councillor Vickery described the outbuilding as a bulky outbuilding, an overdevelopment of the site and not in keeping with the area, with a dramatic impact on the amenity for the surrounding properties as this outbuilding is visually dominant, and not in keeping with the local character of the neighbourhood, which consists of open green spaces in the rear gardens. She also claimed it is intrusive in nature and there is a privacy issue along with noise pollution and significant loss of light.

The outbuilding in question measures approximately 4m wide, 13.3m deep, and up to 2.9m high, and includes an attached canopy. According to the P0035.25 Committee Report, one representation from a neighbour raised concerns that the building occupies two-thirds of the garden area and could set a precedent. While the planning officer acknowledged that the outbuilding is larger than others along Wallenger Avenue, the report states: Whilst it is acklowged that the outbuilding is larger than others along Wallenger Avenue, given the deep and spacious rear garden within which it sits (approximately 26m in depth), it is not deemed to appear disproportionately large in relation to the overall size and spaciousness of the rear garden site.

During the meeting, Councillor Vickery stated, Myself and my colleagues feel that this outbuilding fails a number of tests. Firstly, in our opinion, it's overdevelopment of the site and not in keeping with the area... Secondly, there is a dramatic impact on the amenity for the surrounding properties as this outbuilding is visually dominant. Councillor Vickery argued that the outbuilding violates the council's Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document, which states that The outbuilding should be subordinate in scale to the existing dwelling and to the plot...outbuildings should not detract from the character of the area and should be unobtrusively located to the side and rear of the existing dwelling.

Councillor Reg Whitney echoed these concerns, stating, I think, look at it, it looks like a rather large building for one. And I think the concern there would be setting a president or could set a president if each or another garden wants to set the same building the size of that. It looks rather large.

Planning officers, however, recommended granting permission, subject to conditions. The officer's report stated that the outbuilding occupies less than one-sixth of the garden area and is not deemed disproportionately large. They also stated that the application has been assessed on the basis that the applicant has stated that it's used as a gym and playroom and that a condition would be imposed stating that any use of the outbuilding should be remaining as incidental to the use of the property. The planning officer's report recommended granting planning permission subject to conditions relating to accordance with plans, incidental use, a flank window condition, and no negotiation required.

Despite the recommendation for approval, the committee ultimately voted against granting planning permission. Four members voted against the motion, one in favour, and one abstained. The committee cited the visual impact, bulk, size, height, and proximity to the boundary as reasons for refusal, stating that the outbuilding has an overbearing structure that will impact upon other residents. The committee ultimately deemed these conditions insufficient because they were concerned about the visual impact, bulk, size, and height of the outbuilding, as well as its proximity to the boundary and the potential impact on residential amenity. They also expressed concern that approving the application could set a precedent for similar developments. The committee voted against the officer's recommendation.

The committee agreed that the visual impact arising from the design and appearance of the building, and the resulting harm on residential amenity, formed a strong refusal reason. A substantive motion for refusal was then voted on and carried.

Following the refusal, the council would issue an enforcement notice. The options presented to the homeowner were to lower the building's height to 2.5 meters to comply with permitted development rules or submit the application. The enforcement notice could require the applicant to take steps to reduce the height of the outbuilding.

Councillor Whitney expressed concern that approving the application could set a precedent for other residents to build similar-sized outbuildings, changing the character of the area. He stated, I think the concern there would be setting a president or could set a president if each or another garden wants to set the same building the size of that. It looks rather large. And then with the extension on the back of the House of Presidents. However, the planning officer advised that each application is considered on its own merits, so precedent should not be a factor in the refusal reason.

The Agenda and Public Reports Pack provide further details on the application and the committee's considerations.