The Havering Council Planning Committee met to discuss one planning application for the retention of an existing outbuilding. Councillors voted against the officer's recommendation to approve the application, and instead voted to refuse it.

P0035.25 - 13 Wallenger Avenue, Romford

Councillors considered a retrospective planning application for the retention of an existing outbuilding at 13 Wallenger Avenue, Romford. Councillor Christine Vickery called the application in, and spoke against the development on behalf of residents, arguing that the bulky outbuilding was an overdevelopment of the site, out of keeping with the area, and had a dramatic impact on the amenity for the surrounding properties .

The planning officer, Kelvin Naicker, stated that the application was for the retention of an existing outbuilding, which was already built. He stated that the outbuilding measured approximately 4m wide, 13.3m deep and up to 2.9m high at its maximum point, and also benefited from an attached canopy which measures approximately 3m high and projects approximately 3.8m deep. He stated that the application had been assessed on the basis that the applicant had stated that it was used as a gym and playroom.

Councillor Reg Whitney raised concerns about the size of the building, and the precedent it could set for other residents wishing to build similar structures. He also raised concerns about a potential extension to the main house, and how that would affect the amount of garden space remaining.

Another councillor asked if the pool was new, and suggested that the outbuilding could be used in connection with the pool.

The planning officer stated that the reason that the application was before the committee was because the outbuilding was too high to be considered permitted development. He stated that the options presented to the homeowner were to lower the building in height to 2.5m, which would make it permitted development, or to submit a planning application.

Councillors discussed the possibility of imposing a condition that the outbuilding be used only for purposes incidental to the main dwelling, but some councillors expressed concern that such a condition would be difficult to enforce, given the council's limited enforcement resources.

The planning officer advised that the committee should consider the planning merits of the application as it stood, and not be influenced by concerns about future enforcement. He stated that the key question was whether the condition around incidental use was strong enough to control the use of the building.

Councillor Whitney reiterated his concern about the size of the building and the precedent it could set. He suggested that if the building were to be kept, it should be reduced in size.

Councillors also raised concerns about the proximity of the building to the boundary with number 15 Wallenger Avenue, and the potential impact on the neighbour's ability to maintain their fence.

Ultimately, councillors voted against the officer's recommendation to approve the application. Four councillors voted against the application, one voted in favour, and one abstained.

Councillors then discussed the reasons for refusing the application. They agreed that the reasons for refusal should focus on the visual impact of the building, its bulk, size, and height, and its impact on residential amenity. The planning officer advised against including the issue of setting a precedent as a reason for refusal, as each application should be considered on its own merits.

Councillors then voted on a substantive motion to refuse the application based on the visual impact, bulk, size, height, and proximity to the boundary, and the resulting harm to residential amenity. The outcome of this vote was not recorded in the transcript.