# 6 Bacon's Lane, Highgate (listed building consent, garden studio)

- **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
- **Tags:** tier-2, listed-building-consent, heritage-harm-decisive, he6-harm-graded, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, linked-appeals

## 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
- **HE6(1): harm (substantial weight).** substantial weight to conservation "irrespective" of the level of effect; harm "towards the lower end of harm" (DL 32-33)
- **HE6(3): harm (considerable weight).** 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)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6005981
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/479251f7-ebf9-48e9-9cce-05232f32d474

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6005981.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.