Appeal 6001691

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal form confirms an agreement to change the description of development from that set out on the original application form. Accordingly, the description given in the banner heading above reflects that revised description.

The appeal site lies in the Fitzjohns/Netherhall Conservation Area (the CA). Accordingly, the statutory duty under Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 applies, which requires special attention to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA.

The Council’s reasons for refusal 3 to 5 concerned the absence of planning obligations to secure: (a) car‐free/car‐capped status; (b) a Construction Management Plan (CMP) and an implementation support contribution and impact bond; and (c) a highways contribution.

A completed planning obligation, dated 12 November 2025, has been provided with the appeal. It secures: (a) car‐free status with an exemption limited to named returning occupiers; (b) a CMP, a £4,194 CMP implementation support contribution and an £8,000 CMP bond; and (c) a £9,873.07 highways contribution and approval of level plans prior to implementation.

The Council’s submissions indicate that entering into a suitable agreement would address reasons for refusal 3 to 5. It had indicated it would provide an update at the final comments stage regarding completion of the obligation, but no further specific comments were received. However, the sealed deed, signed by both main parties, was submitted with the appeal. I am satisfied that the obligation meets the relevant tests set out in paragraph 58 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended). Accordingly, reasons for refusal 3 to 5 are not addressed in this decision.

The main issues are: • Whether sufficient evidence has been provided to justify the demolition of the existing building, having regard to climate change and waste reduction objectives; and • Whether the proposed development would have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area, including whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA.

Policy CC1 of the Camden Local Plan 2017 (the CLP) requires all development to minimise the effects of climate change and to meet the highest feasible environmental standards that are financially viable during construction and occupation. Criterion e. of the policy imposes a separate and specific requirement that all proposals involving substantial demolition are required to firstly demonstrate that it is not possible to retain and improve the existing building.

The appellant’s Condition and [name] (CFS) is detailed and site‐specific. It includes a photographic survey, an assessment of major building elements, and structural engineer diagrams showing the underpinning and temporary works that would be required to retain parts of the structure. The CFS identifies defects in the existing building, including uninsulated walls and floors, low floor‐to‐ceiling heights, and the presence of asbestos. It concludes that only approximately 53% of walls and 46% of floor slabs could be reused, with 0% reuse potential for windows, doors, roofs and non‐structural walls.

The appellant contends that these conditions render extensive upgrading works necessary, including roof replacement, slab removal, cavity ventilation, and wholesale replacement of fenestration. They argue that, based on the extent of the necessary works, attempting to retain isolated elements would be technically complex, inefficient, and environmentally suboptimal. It is further argued that refurbishment would preclude incorporation of the appellant’s preferred low‐carbon technologies and design strategies.

I recognise the effort and level of detail contained within the CFS. Nevertheless, Policy CC1 e. is not concerned with whether retention would be efficient, cost‐effective, or less optimal in terms of long‐term energy performance. The test is whether retention and improvement of the building is “not possible”. The CFS does not demonstrate that retaining and upgrading the building is technically impossible or structurally unachievable. Rather, it indicates that significant works would be required, and that such works may be undesirable from a design and performance perspective. That does not equate to impossibility.

Additionally, the CFS does not apply a clearly defined benchmark, and thus does not demonstrate, against any objective or policy‐based standard, that retention is not possible. Many of the assessments appear to be qualitative in nature, using terms relating to efficiency, practicality, or consistency with the desired design outcome to describe potential refurbishment works. The analysis relies, in part, on comparing the refurbishment option with the superior performance of the proposed new build, rather than with what a reasonable and policy‐compliant refurbishment could achieve.

In these terms, the appellant additionally relies on the submitted Whole Life Cycle Carbon Assessment (WLCA). This concludes that, over a 60‐year period, the new building would generate lower total life‐cycle carbon emissions than a refurbishment. It also includes a commitment to divert 95% of waste from landfill, exceeding the 85% diversion target referenced in the supporting text to Policy CC1. However, these measures address only the consequences of demolition, not the threshold for its justification.

For proposals involving substantial demolition, Policy CC1 is worded such that criterion e. must first be satisfied before the policy’s wider aims are engaged. The supporting text confirms that substantial demolition must be justified in terms of the optimisation of resources and energy use, in comparison with the existing building, but only after it has been shown that the building cannot be retained and improved. As such, even if the new build would offer lower lifetime carbon emissions, that does not in itself satisfy the initial requirement that retention must be shown to not be possible.

Having regard to all of the above, the appellant’s evidence is thorough and identifies genuine practical challenges in retrofitting the existing structure. However, the information before me does not demonstrate that retention and improvement of the building is not possible. Rather, it demonstrates that retention would be difficult, involve substantial remedial works, and would not achieve the performance standards or internal layout desired for the new dwelling. Those considerations do not satisfy the stringent requirement of Policy CC1 e.

For these reasons, I conclude that insufficient evidence has been provided to justify the demolition of the existing building, and the development would therefore fail to accord with the objectives of CLP Policy CC1, the aims of which have previously been set out. I have identified no specific conflict with Policy SI 7 of the London Plan, March 2021 (the LP) which promotes resource conservation, waste reduction, increases in material re-use and recycling. However, the absence of harm in respect of this policy is a neutral factor that does not overcome the conflict with Policy CC1.

The CA is notable for its planned late‐19th‐century suburban character, defined by substantial detached and semi‐detached houses set within generous landscaped plots that together create a notably verdant, semi‐rural townscape. The area displays a rich mix of architectural styles including [name] and Arts and Crafts houses, alongside occasional Classical, Gothic and later Modernist influences, unified by a traditional palette of materials. The CA’s significance is therefore derived from its individual buildings and the collective townscape and landscape composition, where scale, rhythm, planting, and historic plot patterns create a coherent and high‐quality built environment.

The existing building at the appeal site is identified in the [name] & Management Plan (the CAMP) as a building that “causes harm” to the character and appearance of the CA. Its modest scale and recessive siting nonetheless still reflect the plot’s origin as the rear garden of the original dwelling of No [address], and its subordinate presence and resulting spaciousness ensure a legible link to the historic plot pattern.

[name] attach only moderate weight to the building’s contribution to the CA, any replacement must respond sensitively and reinforce local character in accordance with Policies D1 and D2 of the CLP. These policies collectively seek to secure high quality design in development that respects local character and preserves or enhances the historic environment.

This principle is reflected in the CAMP. However, it does not recommend or encourage the building’s replacement, nor does it state that harmful buildings are suitable for redevelopment as a matter of principle. Rather, it cautions that redevelopment of a negative building may itself cause harm if it erodes garden space, disrupts townscape rhythms, or fails to complement the verdant characteristics of the area.

The appellant highlights the use of locally characteristic materials, the alignment of the front elevation with the established building line, and the incorporation of a hipped roof form that reflects neighbouring roof profiles, with the flat‐topped section largely screened from street level. Although the broadly symmetrical façade would contrast with the more eclectic compositions of nearby properties, its detailing would draw on local architectural cues, and taken in isolation, would not appear markedly uncharacteristic.

However, the proposed replacement dwelling would be substantially larger than the existing structure, with a deeper and taller form that would give it a far greater visual and spatial presence. In combination, its scale, massing and overall form would create an overly assertive and visually dominant building on a plot that historically formed part of a rear garden, and where the modest and recessive nature of the current development still conveys the original spatial plot layout. The proposal would diminish the recognisable garden‐plot character of the appeal site and would read as a full‐sized villa rather than a subordinate, recessive structure. It would therefore dilute an aspect of the CA’s historic spatial form, and the design measures cited by the appellant do not overcome these concerns.

The proposed boundary treatment would introduce tall brick piers and formal metal gates which, whilst utilising high quality materials, would contrast sharply with the predominantly low‐lying walls, hedges and softer boundary treatments that characterise this part of [address]. Although the existing vehicular barrier is unattractive, the solution proposed would not restore or reinforce the prevailing sense of openness at the frontage.

I have had regard to the appellant’s cited precedents, each of which involved either new dwellings or significant reconstruction within the CA. However, based on the available information, those schemes did not occupy a similar former garden plot nor share the spatial constraints or historic characteristics of the appeal site. In each precedent, the scale, plot size, and immediate context differ substantially, and each scheme was assessed against its own circumstances. None of the cited permissions therefore lend specific support to the scheme before me, nor do they alter my previous findings.

I also note the appellant’s reference to pre‐application discussions with the Council. However, I have not been provided with the full pre‐application advice, nor the plans to which that advice related. Moreover, any pre‐application views expressed by the Council do not bind the authority in its later determination of a planning application, particularly where, as the evidence suggests, the design has evolved since those discussions. Accordingly, I attach only limited weight to the appellant’s references to pre‐application engagement.

For the reasons given, I conclude that the development would harm the character and appearance of the area and would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA, resulting in conflict with [name] D1 and D2, the aims of which have previously been set out.

The harm to the significance of the CA is less than substantial, but nevertheless of considerable importance and weight. In accordance with paragraph 215 of the Framework, this must be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

The appellant’s evidence advances several positive attributes to the scheme that could be considered as public benefits. These include the asserted benefits of replacing the existing building with a better and more sympathetic scheme for the CA. They also highlight long‐term sustainability benefits, in particular the improved energy efficiency of the replacement building over its lifetime when compared with the existing structure.

Whilst these benefits carry some public dimension, particularly in relation to environmental considerations, the failure to satisfy the key policy requirement of justifying the demolition limits the weight that can be attached to these benefits. Moreover, the environmental benefits associated with a single new dwelling would be modest. Additionally, the extent of the visual benefit is subjective, and the advantages associated with a higher‐quality dwelling are primarily private benefits to the appellant and future occupiers. Overall, I therefore attach limited weight to the identified public benefits in the overall balance.

Accordingly, even when taken together, I am not persuaded that sufficient public benefits have been identified to outweigh the harm to the significance of the CA, given the great weight that must be given to its conservation. The development therefore fails the test set out in paragraph 215 of the Framework and would remain in conflict with CLP Policy D2 concerning development in conservation areas.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.