Hampstead Planning Watch

Is the Hampstead Neighbourhood Plan effective? This page provides an indication by giving information on selected planning applications within the area of the Plan. The Forum comments on some applications, based on the Plan's policies. Click on the application number to see all the relevant documents on Camden's website. Click on other links to see the Forum's comments and other relevant documents. The outcome is given where this is available. Green indicates that the Hampstead Neighbourhood Plan was explicitly taken into account in the final decision. 

Site, Application

Forum comment

Camden decision


Plan cited?

Wellside, Well Walk


Forum objected to proposed severe pruning of trees on the Neighbourhood Plan’s Important Tree List, as contrary to Plan policies NE2 and NE3. Read comment here




Flat 3, 15 New End



Forum objected to proposed roof extension as contrary to Plan policies DH1, DH2 and the Hampstead Conservation Area Statement. Read comment here




Maisonette Basement and Ground Floor

9 Thurlow Road



Forum objected that the proposed garden building, sited in Biodiversity Corridor J as set out in the Hampstead Neighbourhood Plan, would be contrary to Plan policies NE2, NE3 and NE4. It would also be contrary to the Fitzjohns Netherhall Conservation Area Statement and Camden Local Plan policies A3 and D1. Read comment hereThe Forum later submitted an additional comment, noting that the applicant was planning to remove at least four trees, which would clearly contravene the Neighbourhood Plan as it would destroy habitats and erode the potential for future planting of trees. Read second comment here.




Flat 1

9 Carlingford Road


Forum expressed concern that the proposal neglected to account for tree in garden and asked for an arboricultural report before approval. Read comment here

Tree reports were provided. Application approved subject to tree protection measures, including retention of all trees. 



1 Gayton Crescent



Forum did not submit a comment

Camden refused permission for glass canopy rear extension as contrary to policies D1 and D2 of Camden Local Plan and policies DH1 and DH2 of Hampstead Neighbourhood Plan. Appeal dismissed.



116 Heath Street


Forum objected to retention of a security roller grille as contrary to Neighbourhood Plan policies DH1 and DH2, and paragraph H40 of Hampstead Conservation Area Statement. Read comment here




2nd floor flat,

9 Thurlow Road


Forum objected that proposed new dormer windows would be damaging to the conservation area, contrary to Neighbourhood Plan policy DH1 and the Netherhall Fitzjohn's Conservation Area Statement. Read comment here

Application refused



Holly Hill


Forum supported Camden's application to restore listed railings, as in accordance with Neighbourhood Plan policies DH2 and DH3. Read comment here

Application approved



55 Heath Street


Forum objected to proposed loss of retail space to residential as contrary to Neighbourhood Plan policy EC1. Read comment here

Certificate of lawfulness granted, as proposed development deemed permitted development in accordance with The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015.


Forum comment noted but deemed not ‘relevant material objection’ as application was for lawfulness certificate. Full planning application would be determined using local and neighbourhood plan policies. Forum comment would then be relevant material objection.

Flat 1, 114 Fitzjohn's Avenue


Forum did not submit a comment

Refused proposal to combine two flats as would result in loss of 2-bedroom flat, contrary to policy HC1 (Housing mix) of Hampstead Neighbourhood Plan and policy H7 (Large and small homes) of Camden Local Plan.



10-11 Wildwood Grove


Objected to retrospective proposal for hard landscaping as contrary to the character of the area and therefore Neighbourhood Plan policies DH1 and DH2. Read comment here




21 South End Road



Forum submitted comment to Planning Inspectorate on the applicant's appeal against Camden's refusal. Forum said application failed to protect the amenity of neighbours, contrary to Neighbourhood Plan policy DH1. Read comment here

Camden refused application for change of use from A1 to B1a and installation of rear door on the grounds that it would harm the amenity of neighbours who would have no access control, contrary to policies A1 and C5 of Camden plan. Appeal lodged. 



21 South End Road


Objected to retrospective application regarding air conditioning unit as failing to support the amenity of neighbours, contrary to Neighbourhood Plan policy DH1. Read comment here




Branch Hill pond, corner Branch Hill and W. Heath Road


Supported proposal to restore pond on a land near Branch Hill, in accordance with Neighbourhood Plan policies NE1 and NE3. Read comment here




26 Rosslyn Hill (former police station/proposed Abacus School)

2019/2375/P and 2019/2491/L

Objected to change of use to a one-form entry school as contrary to Neighbourhood Plan, Local Plan and emerging London Plan. Read comment here




2 Cannon Place



Objected to proposed widening of crossover and removal of part of boundary wall so as to provide additional off-street parking as contrary to Local Plan, Conservation Area Statement and Neighbourhood Plan. Read comment here

Approved plan for replacing garden shed after applicant revised proposal, removing widening of crossover, loss of boundary wall and additional car-parking. 



Land adjacent to Jack Straws Castle



Objected on the basis that proposed development, at the time it was submitted, was contrary to emerging Neighbourhood Plan, DH1 and DH2, failing to enhance conservation area and negative impact on heritage assets. Read comment here.

Developer lodged appeal after non-determination by Camden, which indicated it would have refused permission based on the fact that the proposed overall bulk, form and design of the new houses was considered harmful to the setting of the adjoining listed buildings and character and appearance of the surrounding conservation area. It would not comply with Camden Plan policies D1 and D2 and Hampstead NP policies DH1 and DH2. Forum's comment was part of Planning Inspectorate's appeal process. Appeal withdrawn. 



9 Pilgrim's Lane

2019/1606/L and


Objected to proposed extension to listed dwelling as contrary to HNP D2, failure to protect or enhance a building that makes a positive contribution to the conservation area. Read comment here.

Application was withdrawn.



29 Willow Road


Objected to part of the proposal to create a new street-level bin storage area. Contrary to HNP DH2, failure to protect a feature that makes a positive contribution to the conservation area. Read comment here




9 Nassington Road



Forum did not submit a comment

Refused: proposed hip-to-gable roof extension would appear as an incongruous and visually intrusive alteration, unbalancing the symmetry with the adjoining property at 11 Nassington Road, which would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the building, streetscene and South Hill Park Conservation Area. Contrary to policies DH1 and DH2 of the Hampstead Neighbourhood Plan. 



1 Lyndhurst Rd




Objected to proposed cross-over and parking space as contrary to Local Plan T2, Conservation Area Statement and HNP policies DH1, DH2, NE2, NE4. Read comment here

Refused on the basis that loss of front garden space and boundary wall would be damaging to conservation area and contrary to policies DH1 and DH2 of Hampstead Neighbourhood Plan 


Jack Straws Castle 

12 North End Way,  Application from Heathside School



Objected to proposed change of use B1/D2 premises that would permit a private school expanding to this location.  Proposal contrary to HNP TT1 and TT3, emerging London Plan and paragraph 4.33 of Camden Local Plan. Also contrary to HNP EC1 which supports sustainable development that helps retain jobs and encourages a mix of shops and services. Read comment here.


1 The Mount



Forum did not submit a comment

Refused: ‘The proposed double door opening at lower ground floor, by virtue of a loss of historic fabric and harm to the historic plan form, would harm the special architectural and historic interest of the Grade II Listed building, contrary to policy D2 of the London Borough of Camden Local Plan 2017 and Policy DH2 of the Hampstead Neighbourhood Plan 2018 and paragraph 196 of the NPPF 2018.’



Jack Straws Castle   

12 North End Way



Objected to proposed loss of B1/D2 premises to residential. Read comment here





42 Willow Road



Forum did not submit a comment.

Refused: The proposed rear spiral staircase, 'by reason of its siting, scale and bulk would appear as a visually obtrusive and prominent addition given the corner siting of the property and it would fail to respect and preserve the original design and proportions of this row of terraces, all to the detriment of the character of the building and the wider conservation area, contrary to policies D1 and D2 of Camden's Local Plan and policies DH1 and DH2 of the Hampstead Neighbourhood Plan.’



Magdala Tavern, 2A South Hill Park


Objected to proposed conversion of first floor function room to residential. Noted that heavy community use of the first floor function rooms was a major factor in the Council granting ACV status to the pub and said it should be retained for community use. Failure to erect a staircase giving public access to the room is contrary to planning permission granted to 2014/6588/P. Read comment here

Refused: ‘The proposed development by reason of the loss of the first floor ancillary space, without adequate justification, would materially change the character of an existing use designated as an Asset of Community Value and compromise the long-term viability and future of the public house which provides an important local community facility.’




7 St Crispin’s Close


Commented that proposal to build side extension, by virtue of its proposed mass and height, would harm amenity of neighbours and would fail to enhance the character of the area. Read comment here

Granted following modification of plans, including removal of proposed side extension. Policy DH1 of Hampstead Neighbourhood Plan cited. 



Flat 2nd Floor, Mount Tyndal, Spaniards Road


Supported proposal to divide 6-bedroom flat into two 3-bedroom flats. The inclusion of smaller self-contained dwellings in non-social housing is supported by HNP Policy HC1. Read comment here




20 Rosslyn Hill



Forum commented it had no objection to returning this property to residential use. Read comment here. Forum later noted that the doctor whose surgery was at the premises had not agreed to the change, and that support was withdrawn pending a revised Design & Access statement. Read comment here. The doctor was later reported to be supporting the change.




11 Foley House,    East Heath Road



Forum did not submit a comment

Refused: Because of its scale, massing and use of glazing, the proposal would damage the setting of a listed building and the conservation area, would cause light pollution to neighbours and would be detrimental to private open space. HNP Policies DH1, DH2 and NE1 cited.



3 Carlingford Road



Forum expressed concern about future of silver birch tree in rear garden and that inadequate attention was being given to it, contrary to HNP policy NE2. Read comment here.

Granted, subject to tree protection measures being in place during works. Decision followed tree survey and submission of revised plans showing retention of tree in rear garden.



Branch Hill

Developer's pre-planning advice on draft plans 

Forum commented that draft plans were contrary to HNP policy NE1, Local Green Spaces. Part of development located on designated LGS. 

Draft plans withdrawn



Bosinney            Gayton Road



Forum did not submit a comment.

Initially refused: ‘The metal fence, entrance door and side panel, by virtue of their design, materials and location, are considered to be incongruous and unsympathetic features that harm the character and appearance of the host building, streetscene in Gayton Road and Hampstead conservation area. Furthermore the metal fence does not provide adequate greenery to compensate for the previous loss of landscaped garden here and thus results in an erosion of the green character of this streetscene and conservation area. This is contrary to policies D1 (design) and D2 (heritage) of the London Borough of Camden Local Plan 2017 as well as policies DH1 (design) and DH2 (conservation areas) of the Hampstead Neighbourhood Plan 2018.’ Enforcement notice issued. Appeal lodged. Appeal was successful. Planning Inspectorate reversed Camden's decision and allowed the development. It ruled that development preserved and enhanced the Conservation Area and did not contravene the Local Plan or the Neighbourhood Plan. 



Camden ERUV



Objected that ERUV plans were contrary to HNP policies DH1, DH2 and DH3. Read comment here.




12 Willoughby Road



Forum did not submit a comment

Refused: ‘The proposed extension and terrace, by reason of its height, bulk, form and detailed design, would cause harm to the original design and proportions of the host building, the architectural integrity of the wider terrace as a whole, and would fail to be read as a subordinate extension, causing harm to the character and appearance of the host building, wider terrace of buildings and the Hampstead Conservation Area, contrary to policies D1 (Design) and D2 (Heritage) of the London Borough of Camden Local Plan 2017, and policy DH1 of the Hampstead Neighbourhood Plan.’  Appeal lodged.



28 Willoughby Road




Supported proposal to install H&HS plaque to Christopher Wade and to widen entrance. Objected that proposal to install six exterior uplighters was excessive and contrary to HNP Policy NE4. Read comment here

Granted. Decision followed modification of plan to two exterior lights.



6 Streatley Place



Objected that Basement Impact Assessment fails to show impact would be less than Burland Scale 1, contrary to HNP policy BA1. No Basement Construction Plan, contrary to BA2. Construction management plan does not conform with BA3 and TT1. Read comment here




80 Rosslyn Hill    Snappy Snaps



Objected that the proposed signage (already erected) was contrary to HNP Policy EC2. Read comment here

Refused and Warning of Prosecution Action: ‘The proposed fascia signs and trough illumination, by virtue of their size, design, materials and locations, would be visually intrusive and unsympathetic to the character and appearance of the host building and the Hampstead Conservation Area, contrary to policies D1, D2, and D4 of the Camden Local Plan 2017 and policy EC2 of The Hampstead Neighbourhood Plan 2018.’ Following negotiations through an advertisement consent application  no: 2019/0544/A, the layer of fascia has been removed, strip light removed for spot lighting and traditional projecting swinging sign, this has all been implemented and therefore the breach has been rectified.



11 Mansion Gardens



Objected to proposal to create off-street parking contrary to Camden Local Plan T2. Read comment here




13 Kemplay Road




Objected that proposal was contrary to HNP policy DH2, and pointed to issues with Basement Impact Assessment. Read comment here




38, 39 and 40A Hampstead High Street


Objected that loss of retail/business space in Hampstead was contrary to HNP policies EC1 and EC2. Read comment here

Granted after proposal modified and request to change business to residential withdrawn.



Flat A, 43 Hampstead High Street



Objected that the proposed extension would cause harm to neighbouring buildings and was contrary to HNP policy DH2. Read comment here

Non-Determination: would have refused. Appeal dismissed. HNP policies DH1 and DH2 cited.



















































































































































































































































If you have any questions, please email info@hampsteadforum.org



Be the first to comment

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.