# Leapman House, 59 Primrose Gardens, Belsize Park

- **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
- **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, heritage-harm-decisive, conservation-area, self-build, backland, l2-plot-intensification, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework

## 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
- **HE6: harm (considerable weight).** 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
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009503
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/b58fc27d-6ef6-4d72-a7d9-c13d80e4e385

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009503.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.