# 22B Ellerdale Road, Hampstead

- **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
- **Tags:** tier-2, householder, conservation-area, he6-harm-graded, heritage-harm-decisive, l2-airspace, s4-substantially-outweighed, non-determination, costs-application, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework

## 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
- **HE6: harm (considerable weight).** 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
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009198
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/db90f29b-33d2-42af-95b0-05b430271892

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009198.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.