- Decision
- dismissed, 2 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: Ann Veevers
- Authority
- Camden (London)
- Appeal reference
- 6005981
- Application reference
- 2025/5133/L
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Listed building consent for demolition of sheds and a pyramid-roofed garden studio incorporating a historic boundary wall, at a Grade II listed 1950s house (Appeal B; planning Appeal A is PINS-6005980)
- Site context
- inside settlement, conservation area, listed building setting
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- HE4(2), HE6(3), HE6(4)
- Development plan policies
- Camden Local Plan 2017 D1, D2
- Main issues
- special interest of the listed building; conservation area
Summary
The listed building consent half of the Bacon's Lane garden-studio appeals (see PINS-6005980 for the full analysis). Dismissed. The same reasoning applies. The harm to the Grade II house was "towards the lower end of harm" (DL ¶33), but it carried considerable importance and weight and was not outweighed by limited public benefits. There was no clear and convincing justification.
Issues and findings
- Degree of harm. "I deduce the harmful effects in this case would be towards the lower end of harm. Nevertheless, any harm is a matter of considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶33).
- HE4(2). "clear and convincing justification has not been provided for the identified harm to the significance of the designated heritage assets" (DL ¶37).
- HE6(4). "in giving considerable importance and weight to the harm to the significance of the designated heritage assets, I find that this would not be outweighed by the limited public benefits that would be generated by the proposal" (DL ¶38).
- Conclusion on Appeal B. "For the reasons given, I conclude that Appeal B should be dismissed" (DL ¶47).
What made the difference
As for Appeal A: a bulky pyramidal studio in the designed garden that forms part of the listing, and domestic-scale benefits, which included an air source heat pump that was not detailed.
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 | substantial weight to conservation "irrespective" of the level of effect; harm "towards the lower end of harm" (DL 32-33) |
| HE6(3) | harm | considerable | any harm "a matter of considerable importance and weight" (DL 33, 38) |
| HE4(2) | fail | no clear and convincing justification; the residential use does not depend on the scheme (DL 37) | |
| HE6(4) | fail | ASHP, construction and housing-stock benefits limited weight; shed removal carries no weight as part of a more harmful replacement (DL 34-38) |
Key facts
- Same decision letter as PINS-6005980 (Appeal A, s78); this file is the s20 listed building consent appeal (DL 1-3)
- 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.