Communal garden storage shed at 51 & 53 Longley Road, London SW17

What was proposed

Retrospective permission was sought for a storage shed in the communal rear garden serving two residential buildings and their flats.

“Retrospective planning permission is sought for the erection of a shed to the rear of a communal garden serving both properties and their respective flats. The shed has been substantially completed; however, areas of hardboard are still visible as the installation of timber cladding to some elevations remains unfinished.”

“The outbuilding has a maximum height of 2.6m sloping down to 2.4m towards properties along Trevelyan Road. The total depth and width measures 5.4m and 8.4m respectively. The GIA totals approximately 40 sqm. The outbuilding is situated in between the two plots (No’s 51 and 53) and is set back 0.3m from the rear boundary, approximately 8.75m from the western boundary with No 49 and 6.85m from the eastern boundary with No 55.”

Officer report

Earlier applications and enforcement

Earlier schemes for outbuildings and housing were refused, while an enforcement investigation concerned an outbuilding erected without permission.

“2022 (2021/5782) Refused, Appeal Dismissed: Alterations including erection of 2 x single- storey (plus basement level) outbuildings in rear gardens.”

“Enforcement Planning Investigation: (2025/0318/ENF): Outbuilding erected without pp.”

Officer report

Why officers recommended approval

Officers considered the shed’s design, scale and residential storage use acceptable, with conditions covering ancillary use and ecological enhancement.

“The design, scale and proportions are considered acceptable and the building is not highly prominent, visually intrusive nor dominant within the garden setting. The local spatial character remains preserved. Overall, it is considered that the design and scale of the outbuilding does not harm the character and appearance of the immediate area and is an acceptable addition within garden setting of Longley Road.”

“Officers consider that use of the outbuilding for storage in connection with the residential properties is an appropriate ancillary residential purpose. Condition 2 is recommended, to ensure the outbuilding is used and maintained as ancillary to the main residential properties. Overall, subject to the recommended condition, the outbuilding is considered to comply with policy LP2 of the Wandsworth Local Plan (2023) with regard to neighbouring amenity impacts.”

Officer report

What consultees and residents said

Ten initial objections and two further objections raised concerns about size, appearance, boundaries, drainage, safety, biodiversity, shared space and possible wider use.

“Missing drainage/utilities. • Outdated tree survey. • Fire Safety Risks: Timber/plastic roof; close to dwellings; no fire-resistant measures. • No drainage strategy for roof area. • Loss of Communal Amenity: Reduces shared space for residents; impacts outlook. • Biodiversity Harm and habitat loss for wildlife in communal garden. • Neighbourhood Character & Precedent: Erodes green space; sets harmful precedent; undermines community cohesion.”

“Revised drawings increase size, worsening impact. • Positioned only 300mm from boundary, blocking maintenance and creating security risk. • No drainage strategy despite roof sloping toward boundary. • Application contains conflicting dimensions and outdated tree report. • References to landlord storage and electrical installations suggest commercial intent and undeclared utilities. • Misrepresentation of biodiversity and open space impacts.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Councillor Osborn addressed the committee on behalf of local residents and asked for refusal so a less obtrusive shed could be considered.

What members debated

Members discussed the objections, possible precedent, the shed’s use, access, the size of the garden structure and whether a green roof could help biodiversity.

“A Member referred to the number of objections in both consultations on the proposal and questioned whether this was wide spread concern in the area. Councillor Osborn responded that he had spoken to residents in other streets, and the objections made by the 10 people in the first consultation still applied for the second consultation that had related to a minor change in the application.”

“The loss of habitat was referred to, and a Member suggested whether a green roof could be investigated for biodiversity. The Head of Development Management noted that a green roof would increase the height, and this probably would not be a good suggestion given the concerns raised by residents in relation to the shed’s size.”

Minutes

The committee vote

The committee unanimously voted to grant planning permission as set out in the report.

“RESOLVED - (unanimous) that planning permission be granted as set out in the report.”

Minutes

The decision and conditions

Planning permission was granted with conditions requiring compliance with approved details, ancillary residential use and an ecological enhancement plan.

“Condition AC43 - Use only ancillary to existing use The outbuilding hereby permitted shall be used only in conjunction with and ancillary to the main use of the premises for residential purposes. In accordance with policy LP2 and LP14 of the Local Plan. Reason: To prevent the introduction of an independent use without prior consent by the local planning authority.”

“Condition AC11 – Ecology Enhancement Plan Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans and set out in the supporting information, an Ecological Enhancement Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority within three months from the date of any planning permission. The Plan shall include details of all measures to provide biodiversity gain onsite, including but not limited to: Details of the ground-planted living wall.”

Officer report