Resident Who Failed To Apply For Planning Permission Before a Two Storey Out Building Was Built, Could Face It Being Torn Down.

A Havering resident may not be allowed to keep her home extension, following a councillor’s successful challenge writes Sebastian Mann, Local Democracy reporter.

Judith Yung applied to Havering Council for retrospective permission for a two-storey outbuilding in her garden in Wallenger Avenue.

She intended to use the building – measuring 4m wide, 13.3m deep and up to 2.9m high – as a gym and playroom, according to planning documents.

Applicants typically seek planning permission before they start building, but it is also legal to apply after the work has been finished. If retrospective permission is not granted, the structure will need to be torn down.

Though the council’s planning department said the extension should be approved, the application was taken before the committee by Conservative councillor Christine Vickery.

She said the “bulky” structure constituted overdevelopment of the land. She called it “visually dominant” and “intrusive in nature,” and said it was “not in-keeping with the visual character of the neighbourhood”.

The Squirrels Heath ward representative was the only person to raise a formal objection but told the planning committee on the 14 August, that she was speaking on behalf of local residents.

Havering Residents Association (HRA) councillor Reg Whitney, who sits on the committee, said it looked a “rather large building” and expressed concern it “could set a precedent” that neighbours would follow.

Planning officers argued the outbuilding only took up a sixth of the garden space – not a third, as per the objections – and was not “disproportionately large” compared to other sheds along Wallenger Avenue.

They also felt the absence of windows on the wall facing the neighbouring home meant residents would not lose their privacy.

The recommendation to approve the request was ultimately shot down by three votes to one, with one abstention, after a brief debate among councillors and the planning directorate.

In their formal reasoning, the committee pointed to the “bulk and size” of the building, branding it “overbearing,” the proximity to the garden’s boundaries, and the visual impact for neighbours.

Their concerns about it setting a precedent were not officially included on the advice of planning director Helen Oakerbee, who reminded councillors each planning decision must be made on its own merits.

Stay up to date with all of our latest updates and content by following us on our social media accounts!

We have created community pages where we will share our up-to-date stories happening in the area. Add the area closest to where you live.