The Planning Committee of Havering Council met on Thursday 14 August 2025, to discuss an application for the retention of an existing outbuilding at 13 Wollonga Avenue, Romford. The committee considered the officer's recommendation to grant planning permission but ultimately voted against it. Following this, the committee debated and agreed on grounds for refusal, and subsequently voted to refuse the application.

Retention of Outbuilding at 13 Wollonga Avenue, Romford

The committee considered an application for the retention of an existing outbuilding at 13 Wollonga Avenue, Romford. The outbuilding measures approximately 4m wide, 13.3m deep, and up to 2.9m high, with an attached canopy. This application was called in by Councillor Christine Vickery due to concerns about backland development, overdevelopment, and the impact on the character of the area, as well as issues of privacy, noise, and loss of light.

Officers had recommended granting planning permission, subject to conditions including that the outbuilding remain incidental to the main dwelling and that flank windows be restricted. They argued that the outbuilding, while large, did not constitute overdevelopment given the size of the rear garden, which was approximately 335 square metres, with the outbuilding and canopy occupying about 53 square metres (less than one-sixth of the garden area). Officers also stated that the outbuilding did not have a detrimental impact on neighbouring amenity in terms of light, outlook, or privacy, noting a separation distance of over 7 metres from the boundary with number 11 Wollonga Avenue and a close-boarded fence. The use of the outbuilding as a gym/playroom was considered incidental to the dwellinghouse, with no anticipated harmful noise or disturbance.

However, councillors raised significant concerns. Councillor Reg Whitney expressed that the building looked rather large and worried about setting a precedent for similar structures in the area. He also questioned whether the outbuilding was intended as a residential unit due to its internal features, including a shower room and toilet, and raised concerns about the potential for the building to be used as a sublet rental property, noting the strain on enforcement officers.

Councillor Gerry O'Sullivan questioned whether the building, in its current form, would have been approved if it had been submitted as a standard planning application, to which officers confirmed the recommendation would have been approval.

Further discussion focused on the height of the outbuilding, which was 2.9m, exceeding the 2.5m threshold for permitted development. Councillors debated the implications of retrospective applications and the council's ability to enforce conditions. The committee voted against the officer's recommendation to grant planning permission. Following this, the committee agreed on refusal grounds related to the visual impact arising from the design, appearance, bulk, size, and height of the building, and its resulting impact on residential amenity. The committee then voted to refuse the application on these grounds.