- Decision
- dismissed, 8 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: K Dryden
- Authority
- Camden (London)
- Appeal reference
- 6009198
- Application reference
- 2026/0326/P
- Procedure
- householder
- Development
- Raised roof with rear dormer, first-floor front and rear extensions and replacement single-storey rear extension to a two-storey house
- Site context
- inside settlement, conservation area
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- HE6, HE9, L2(1)(d)(i), DP3, S4
- Development plan policies
- Camden Local Plan 2017 D1, D2, Hampstead Neighbourhood Plan 2025-2040 DH1, DH2, Fitzjohns/Netherhall CA Appraisal 2022
- Main issues
- character and appearance and conservation area
Summary
Raised roof, zinc and timber upper storey, and front and rear extensions to a small set-back house in a Hampstead conservation area. Appealed for non-determination and dismissed. The extensions were not subordinate and caused "moderate" harm to the CA, including by undermining the positive contribution of two neighbouring buildings.
What made the difference
Cumulative bulk and discordant materials on a prominently visible building. The inspector ran the HE6 balance, where a larger family home was a private benefit "comfortably outweighed" by the harm (DL ¶15), and then S4. L2(1)(d) airspace support was treated as conditional on sub-criterion (i), consistency with the street scene (DL ¶23). A neutral building can still harm a CA by detracting from its positive neighbours (DL ¶¶11, 13).
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 | harm | considerable | moderate harm to Fitzjohns/Netherhall CA, partly through undermining positive neighbours Nos 20 and 22; private family-home benefits do not outweigh (DL 13-16) |
| L2(1)(d)(i) | fail | airspace support conditional on street-scene consistency / no substantial harm to character of building (DL 23) | |
| S4 | fail | benefits substantially outweighed (DL 22-25) |
Key facts
- Non-determination; costs application made (DL 1-3)
- Lapsed 2005 permission for similar scheme given little weight under newer plan and NP (DL 18)
- Parties invited to comment on the new Framework (DL 4)
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.