Appeal 6003111

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The Council have provided the emerging Draft New Camden Local Plan. The policies relevant to this proposal are broadly consistent with those in the adopted Camden Local Plan (2017) against which the scheme was assessed. I have therefore determined the appeal with reference to the policies in the adopted plan.

The proposal is a reduced version of a scheme refused in September 20251 and dismissed at appeal in November 20252. A planning permission for works to the appeal property to include a single storey ground floor rear extension and a first floor and roof extension to the front was approved in 20053. I have had regard to both of these schemes however I have considered this appeal on its own merits.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area and host property and whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Fitzjohns Netherhall Conservation Area. 1 2025/3126/P 2 APP/X5210/D/25/3373315 3 2005/3520/P Appeal Planning Officer 6003111

The appeal site lies within the Fitzjohns Netherhall Conservation Area (CA), the significance of which is derived from the large, stylistically varied villas drawing on [name] and Arts and Crafts influences that offer architectural and visual importance. Large gardens and mature vegetation contribute to an open and green aspect to the residential properties and are an important feature contributing to the significance of the CA.

In contrast to the larger villas either side, the appeal property is a modest, two-storey building set down from the street. Originally constructed as an ancillary building to [address], it was later converted to an independent dwelling. Its scale and proportions remain noticeably subordinate to the grander villas that characterise [address] and reflect its historic ancillary function.

The proposed roof extension and dormer would increase the ridge height of the appeal property to accommodate a third storey. The ridge height increase would dominate and change the character of the host dwelling, fundamentally altering the property’s form from a modest subordinate two-storey, increasing its visual presence within the street. This change would erode the building’s historic ancillary character and disrupt the established hierarchy of built form along [address].

To the rear, the proposed roof extension and flat roof dormer would add considerable bulk. These additions would dominate the existing gabled first floor roof form, which is currently the main focus of the rear elevation and provides coherence with the gables of neighbouring properties. The flat-roofed elements would appear incongruous alongside the established roof profiles and would further diminish the subordinate nature of the host property, introducing a visually bulky and poorly integrated addition.

At ground floor level, the rear elevation currently projects beyond those of the neighbouring properties. The proposed ground floor extension, a reduction from the 2025 scheme yet still exceeding that approved in 2005, would increase this projection further. While the lower elevation of the appeal property relative to its neighbours, together with the mature vegetation, would mitigate harm in terms of the built form, the extension would nevertheless encroach further into the property’s rear garden. The surrounding pattern of development maximises the spaciousness of rear gardens, and due to the property being set back, the garden is already marginally smaller than that of its neighbours. The increased depth of the extension would therefore result in a further erosion of space, failing to preserve the established open and spacious pattern of development within the rear gardens that is characteristic of the CA.

The hipped roofs to the proposed ground and first floor extensions would assist in tying these rear elements to the host building and wider roofscape. However, these lower-level additions would be dominated by the scale of the proposed rear roof and dormer extensions, forming visually prominent and discordant elements that would harm the character of the host property.

Due to its height, depth, bulk and massing, I therefore conclude that the proposal would fail to remain subordinate to the host property and would fail to preserve the character or appearance of the CA. The proposal would result in a marginal degree of less than substantial harm to the CA to which, in accordance with paragraph 215 Appeal Planning Officer 6003111 of the National Planning Policy Framework, such harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. Although the proposal may provide additional living space, this is a private benefit to the occupants of the dwelling. No public benefits have been advanced by the appellant. Therefore, the considerable importance and weight given to the harm to the CA, is not outweighed by any public benefits.

The proposal would therefore harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area and host property, and fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policies D1 and D2 of the Camden Local Plan (2017) and Policy DH1 of the Hampstead Neighbourhood Plan 2025 which, amongst other things, seek to ensure development respects local context and preserves or enhances the historic environment.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.