- Decision
- dismissed, 2 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: Ann Veevers
- Authority
- Camden (London)
- Appeal reference
- 6005980
- Application reference
- 2025/4935/P
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Demolition of two garden sheds and erection of a pyramid-roofed garden studio incorporating a historic boundary wall, at a Grade II listed 1950s New Brutalist house (Appeal A; linked LBC Appeal B 6005981)
- Site context
- inside settlement, conservation area, listed building setting
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- HE4(2), HE6(1), HE6(3), HE6(4)
- Development plan policies
- Camden Local Plan 2017 D1, D2
- Main issues
- listed building and setting; conservation area; public benefits
Summary
A garden studio was proposed to replace two sheds beside Leonard Manasseh's Grade II listed 1950s house in Highgate. It was refused under both planning and listed building consent. The inspector used the new heritage policies expressly: HE4(2) (clear and convincing justification), HE6(1) substantial weight "irrespective" of the level of harm, HE6(3) considerable importance and weight, HE6(4) balance, and HE9(2) for the conservation area. The harm was "towards the lower end", but the benefits were limited.
Issues and findings
- Significance. The house's significance includes its designed garden, which is "integral to the planned interplay between external and internal spaces" (DL ¶11).
- Effect. The outbuilding "would be overly large and dominate the gap between No 6 and its boundary wall … compete with the primacy of No 6, disrupting the hierarchy of built form" (DL ¶24). Folding the historic wall into it weakens its authenticity (DL ¶25).
- Conservation area. "Policy HE9.2 of the Framework recognises that not every element of a conservation area necessarily contributes to its significance", but limited public visibility "does not override my duty" (DL ¶28-29). There was localised harm (DL ¶31).
- Weight. "Policy HE6.1 … substantial weight should be given to the asset's conservation, irrespective of whether any potential effect amounts to a positive effect, harm, substantial harm, or total loss" (DL ¶32). The harm is "towards the lower end of harm. Nevertheless, any harm is a matter of considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶33).
- Benefits. Removing the sheds is a gain, but "they would be replaced by development that would be more harmful. As such, this factor carries no weight as a benefit of the proposal in its totality" (DL ¶36).
Planning balance
The HE6(4) heritage balance: limited public benefits (economic, housing-stock improvement, ASHP) set against low harm carrying considerable importance and weight under HE6(3). The harm was not outweighed (DL ¶38). The plan-led conclusion under s38(6) relied on Camden D1 and D2, found "consistent with the Framework" (DL ¶40).
What made the difference
The pyramidal, bulky form, at odds with the house's New Brutalist design, set in a designed garden that is part of the listing. A smaller, more discreet studio in the same place could have been acceptable. The inspector accepted that the eastern garden could "potentially accommodate change" (DL ¶19).
Transferable points
- A heritage gain within a scheme (removing clutter) carries no weight if it is part of a more harmful replacement (DL ¶36).
- Under HE9(2), low public visibility does not remove harm to a conservation area where the site embodies its spacious character (DL ¶28-31).
- Local plan design and heritage policies consistent with the Framework keep full weight after 17 Aug 2026 (DL ¶40).
- An unimplemented older permission is not a fallback, and a changed policy context limits its value for consistency (DL ¶41-42).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| HE6(1) | harm | substantial | bulky, top-heavy outbuilding dominates the gap between house and wall, competing with the primacy of No 6 and eroding its designed garden setting; harm 'towards the lower end' (DL 16-27, 33) |
| HE9(2) | harm | not every element of a CA contributes, but the large designed garden supports Bacon's Lane's spacious character; localised harm to Highgate CA (DL 28-31) | |
| HE4(2) | fail | no clear and convincing justification; residential use not dependent on the scheme (DL 37) | |
| HE6(4) | fail | ASHP, economic and housing-stock benefits limited weight; removing the sheds is a heritage gain but carries no weight because the replacement is more harmful (DL 34-38) |
Key facts
- Grade II house by Leonard Manasseh (late 1950s), listed with its designed walled garden (DL 7-11)
- Twentieth Century Society supported the scheme (DL 18, 26)
- 2013 permission for a granny flat unimplemented, so not a fallback; decision context since changed (DL 41-42)
- Parties invited to comment on the August 2026 Framework (DL 5)
Related decisions
Sources
This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.