Outbuilding and sunken patio at 174 St Anns Hill, London SW18

The site and building

The property is a mid-terrace house with a large rear garden, near conservation-area and listed-building assets, with the outbuilding at the garden’s far end.

“Two-storey, mid-terrace property (with basement and roof extension) located on the eastern side of St Ann’s Hill. Located to the north and east is the Wandsworth Common Conservation area. To the north and south are similar two-storey terraced properties, opposite to the west are smaller two-storey houses and to the rear are the locally listed houses at 4-10 St Ann’s Crescent.”

“Retention of outbuilding (29 sq m) at 5.16m high when viewed from St Anns Hill and 2.54m high (to highest point from rear elevation onto the rear passageway) and between 3.14-3.2m high on neighbouring elevations. The building would be 5.13m wide and 7.6m deep, located at the very end of a large rear garden.”

Officer report

Planning and enforcement history

A 2023 certificate covered a similar outbuilding, but the built structure exceeded the permitted height and included an unauthorised internal floor, leading to enforcement investigations and this retrospective application.

“For completeness, a submission of a householder planning application was made in July 2024 for the construction of the two-storey (ground and basement) outbuilding in the rear garden. This was withdrawn by the applicant, due to the level and nature of objections received and to request further discussions with the department.”

“It is not disputed that the outbuilding as built is not in accordance with the proposal approved as part of the Certificate application which is why a planning application has subsequently been submitted seeking to retain the outbuilding and to regularise the breach of planning control. The approved Certificate application details was included within the history section of the OR as it had been determined and to provide background information only.”

Officer report

Why officers recommended approval

Officers considered the scale and design acceptable in context, with conditions to prevent independent use, additional floors, rear access and excessive light pollution.

“Official - Conclusion/Planning Balance 6.1 The outbuilding currently in place has been built unlawfully, given that it varies from the original Certificate of Lawfulness scheme in terms of height and the additional floor that was put in place. The original certificate did grant a similar form of structure in 2023, however the development must now be considered under full planning terms including scale and design, impact on heritage assets, impact on amenity and fire safety.”

“The outbuilding would not result in any significant harm in terms of light, outlook, overbearing impact or privacy given that the structure sits over 20m away from any residential windows to St Anns Hill and 14m to windows to the rear. The outbuilding as it stands would not raise significant noise disturbance, but given the large windows does give off a significant amount of light pollution.”

Officer report

What neighbours said

Eight neighbours objected, citing inaccurate plans, increased scale, privacy and light pollution, drainage and stability concerns, possible independent occupation, and harm to the garden setting.

“Official - New outbuilding is 31% larger than the original timber outbuilding which was already - significant in size in terms of the site and neighbouring gardens - New outbuilding covers 45% of the original garden area which is not modest or in keeping with the site - Double height space is not required for proposed use - Loss of privacy to rear windows and rear garden - Increased noise pollution - Drainage and flood risk concerns due to excavation - Environmental impact…”

Officer report

Who spoke at the meeting

Councillor Sweet spoke for local residents, while council planning and enforcement managers explained the building’s history, measurements, impacts and proposed controls; an Opposition Speaker raised ground-level concerns.

What members discussed

Members considered the building’s height, changed ground levels, previous certificate, enforcement consequences, rear access, internal floor, and whether conditions offered better control than refusal.

“A Member expressed some concerns on the height of the leading edge of the building and also questioned the moral approach of the height at the back of the outbuilding being raised, so that it did not appear too high. The Area Team Manager (West Team) advised that this application had been ongoing for a while from when the certificate was issued at the end of 2023, for the construction of an outbuilding at the property, at the location in question.”

“He added that when the building works had already commenced and the ground levels been changed, it would be impossible to find the exact ground level that it was originally, so was therefore a case of looking at the site as well as the surrounding ground levels in order for an informed judgement to be made, which was carried out with the neighbours present and had been accounted for in the revised drawings submitted.”

Minutes

The decision

Planning permission was granted as set out in the report, taking account of additional information in the late correspondence.

“RESOLVED – (5 for and 3 abstentions) that planning permission be granted as set out in the report, noting the additional information as set out in the late items of correspondence paper.”

Minutes