- Decision
- dismissed, 8 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: K Dryden
- Authority
- Camden (London)
- Appeal reference
- 6009503
- Application reference
- 2025/4625/P
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Demolition of artist's studio and erection of part single, part two-storey self-build dwelling on a backland site
- Homes
- 1
- Site context
- inside settlement, conservation area
- Green Belt
- No
- Housing Delivery Test
- 53%
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- HE6, S4, L2(1)(d)(i), DP3(1)
- Development plan policies
- Camden Local Plan 2017 D2, H4, T1, T2, A1, T4, DM1
- Main issues
- conservation area; character and appearance
Summary
A part two-storey self-build house replacing a demolished artist's studio on a backland site in the Belsize Park Conservation Area was dismissed. The inspector found moderate harm to the CA, visible in glimpsed views between the villas. The L2(1)(d) plot-intensification support did not apply because the house would be visible from the street. There was also an extant permission for a single-storey dwelling. Under S4 the benefits, including a 53% HDT, were "substantially outweighed" (DL ¶29).
Issues and findings
- Heritage (HE5/HE6/HE9): moderate harm. The house "would appear as a bulky and visually intrusive addition … largely characterised by subordinate backland development and a sense of openness" (DL ¶10). "even a moderate level of harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset carries considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶14). The benefits were "comfortably outweighed", and "insufficient information to demonstrate that the claimed benefits … could not be achieved in a less harmful manner, particularly given that planning permission for a single storey dwelling remains extant" (DL ¶15-16).
- L2. "Policy L2 of the Framework requires substantial weight to be given to the creation of additional homes … within existing plots … the Framework Policy L2 1.d)i. requires such development not to be visible from the street frontage" (DL ¶24).
- HO7 / HDT. The 2023 HDT of 53% was accepted, but the contribution was modest, a 4-bed home is a low local priority, and there is an extant consent (DL ¶26-27).
Planning balance
S4: "Taken together, I find the benefits of the proposal would be substantially outweighed by its adverse effects" (DL ¶29). DP3(1) conflict was also found (DL ¶25).
What made the difference
The extant, less harmful single-storey permission. It showed the benefits (a family home) could be delivered with less harm, and it undercut the housing-supply weight. The street-frontage visibility condition in L2(1)(d)(i) removed the automatic substantial weight for plot intensification.
Transferable points
- L2(1)(d)'s substantial weight for homes within existing plots depends on the development not being visible from the street frontage, and glimpsed views count (DL ¶9-10, 24).
- An extant less-harmful permission shows benefits could be achieved with less harm, which undermines the HE6 public-benefit case (DL ¶16, 27).
- A poor HDT (53%) does not by itself tip an S4 balance against moderate CA harm (DL ¶26-29).
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 less-than-substantial harm to Belsize Park CA - two-storey bulk visible in glimpsed views between villas and from surrounding rear gardens; benefits "comfortably outweighed" (DL 9-16) |
| L2(1)(d)(i) | fail | substantial weight for additional homes within plots applies only where not visible from the street frontage; this is visible (DL 24) | |
| HO7 | benefit | HDT 53% (2023) accepted; modest contribution; extant permission for smaller dwelling; 4-bed homes low local priority (DL 26-27) | |
| S4 | fail | benefits substantially outweighed (DL 29) |
Key facts
- Backland site reached by a footpath, visible in glimpsed views between Belsize Grove / Belsize Park Gardens villas, especially in winter
- Extant permission (2022/3470/P) for single-storey 3-bed dwelling - a less harmful way to secure the benefits (DL 16)
- UU for affordable housing contribution, car-free and CMP provided
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.