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.

In the right hand-column, a green background indicates that the Hampstead Neighbourhood Plan's policies were taken into account in the final decision. 

Land adjacent to  Jack Straw's Castle

2020/1828/P

Forum objected that the proposal for two new townhouses would be detrimental to important open space and would be contrary to Plan Policies NE1, DH1 and DH2, as well as Camden policy A2. Read comment here 

 

 

 

106 South Hill Park

2020/2363/P

Forum expressed concern that the plans for proposed rear extension could put at risk the Biodiversity Corridor and said more needed to be done to be consistent with Plan Policies NE3 and NE4. Read comment here

 

 

 

5B Prince Arthur Road

2020/2402/P

Forum objected that the design of the proposed new house was unsuited to the character area and the Conservation Area, and  contrary to Plan policies DH1 and DH2; the large basement  construction and excessive footage were contrary to Plan policy HC1 (housing mix); and the off-street parking was contrary to Camden policies. Read comment here.

 

 

 

9 Pilgrim's Lane

2020/2462/P and 2020/2553/L

 

Forum objected to damage that would be caused to listed neighbour’s property and listed building, contrary to Plan policies DH1 and DH2. Read comment here

 

 

 

14 Prince Arthur Road

2020/1767/P

Forum objected to over-high railings as contrary to Plan policies DH1 and DH2. The applicant revised the application and the objection was withdrawn. Read comment here

 

 

Yes

14A Hampstead Hill Gardens

2020/2165/P

Forum objected to proposed breaking of front boundary wall to make an opening for gate as contrary to Plan policies DH1 and DH2. Read comment here

 

 

 

6-8 Kemplay Road

2020/2104/P

Forum did not object to change of use as this aligned with Plan policy HC1 (housing mix). But it objected that the proposed widened dormer windows would damage the heritage asset and conservation area, contrary to policies DH1 and DH2. Read comment here

 

 

 

3 Inverforth Close

2020/2139/P

Forum objected to the bulk and prominence of the proposed mansard roof extension as contrary to Plan policies DH1 and DH2. Read comment here

 

 

 

14 Prince Arthur Road

2020/1767/P

Forum objected that the proposed railings were too high and overbearing, and contrary to Plan policies DH1 and DH2. Read comment here

 

 

 

2nd/3rd floor flat, 19 Carlingford Road

2020/1974/P

Forum objected that the plans were insufficiently detailed and that the proposed front dormer was contrary to Plan policies DH1 and DH2. Read comment here

 

 

 

16 South Hill Park Gardens

2020/1551/P

Forum objected that the proposed new off-street parking was contrary to several policies of the Hampstead Neighbourhood Plan and the Camden Local Plan, as well as the Conservation Area Statement. Read comment here

 

 

 

32 Parliament Hill

2019/6346/P

 

Forum did not submit a comment

Camden refused on the basis that the proposed roof terraces would appear overbearing and would erode the character and form of the host property, contrary to Local Plan D1 and D2 and HNP policies DH1 and DH2

 

Yes

Garden Flat, 91 Fitzjohn's Avenue

2020/1315/P

Forum requested that Camden attach a condition to proposed extension that a tree be replaced. Read comment here

 

 

 

31 Willoughby Road

2020/0927/P

Forum objected to proposed basement on the basis that it would be contrary to Plan policies DH1 (overlooking), DH2 (possible damage to heritage assets) and BA2 (basement construction plans). Read comment here

 

 

 

18 Frognal Way

2020/0986/P

Forum objected to the proposed extensions as contrary to Plan policy DH2. They would distort the proportions of the building noted as making a positive contribution to the conservation area. Read comment here

Application refused.

 

Yes 

Branch Hill House, Branch Hill

2019/6354/P

Forum commented (jointly with Heath & Hampstead Society) on various aspects of landscape design, urging retention of unique clinker bricks in retaining walls. Suggested use of existing veteran tree deadwood to encourage biodiversity. Read comment here

 

 

 

34 Flask Walk

2020/0787/P

Forum objected to proposed replacement of wooden sash windows with aluminium ones as would be out of context with neighbouring dwellings, hence contrary to Plan policies DH1 and DH2. Read comment here

Application approved.

 

No  

20 Heath Street

Forum commented that it did not object to the change of use from A1 to A1/A3, adding a restaurant to the existing art gallery. Read comment here

 

 

 

14 Prince Arthur Road

2020/1467/T

Forum objected to proposed felling of three lime trees in rear garden as contrary to Plan policy NE2. It urged that the trees be protected by Tree Preservation Orders. Read comment here

Application rejected and Tree Preservation Orders served.

 

Yes   

19E East Heath Road

2017/5565/P

 

Forum did not submit a comment

Camden refused proposed extension citing detrimental impact on character of the area, contrary to policies DH1 and DH2 of Neighbourhood Plan

 

Yes  

26 Christchurch Hill

2019/6379/P

Forum objected to the proposed height of the brick boundary wall, saying this would be damaging to the heritage asset and to the conservation area, contrary to Plan policies DH1 and DH2. Read comment here. The proposal was revised to set the height of the proposed wall at 2.3m instead of 3m. The Forum sent a further objection. Read second comment here

Application approved after proposal amended to lower wall height to 2.3m. Though the Forum argued for a further reduction, the Plan's policies were cited in the decision. 

 

Yes   

4B Hampstead Hill Gardens

2019/5835/P

Forum objected that proposed height and massing of the building would affect the streetscape and damage the amenity of neighbouring 4A, contrary to Plan policy DH1. Read comment here 

 

 

 

9 Willoughby Road

2020/0306/T

Forum objected to the felling of ash tree as contrary to Plan policy NE2. Read comment here

Application rejected and Tree Preservation Order served.

 

Yes  

3 and 3a Frognal Gardens

2019/5995/P

Forum commented that the proposal was contrary to Plan policy HC1 as it would result in the loss of a self-contained dwelling. Read comment here Proposal was modified. Forum commented additionally on widening of a garage and removal of cypress tree. Read second comment here

Application approved subject to conditions including tree protection measures.

 

The proposal was approved. Camden ruled that it was not contrary to policy HC1 or Camden policies on housing mix.

Heysham House, Heysham Lane

2019/5984/P 

Forum commented that the retrospective application for an extension would be unacceptable development within a designated Local Green Space. Read comment here

Application refused and warning of enforcement action issued.

 

Yes   

61 Gayton Road

2019/5928/P

Forum commented that the proposed insertion of new door in frontage would fail to respect the proportions and form of original frontage, contrary to Plan policy EC2. Read comment here

 

 

 

13C Gardnor Road

2019/6281/P

 

Forum commented that proposed change to roofline and addition of roof lights to front of building would be against character of street and area and would be contrary to Plan policies DH1 and DH2. Read comment here

 

 

 

9 Pilgrim’s Lane

2019/5817/P

Forum commented that proposed extension by virtue of its scale and design would be damaging to both the listed building and its listed neighbour as well as the setting.  Design would unbalance the current symmetry of the rear façade. Read comment here

Application withdrawn

 

 

31 Grove Place

2019/5449/P

Forum commented that the drawings were too poor to assess the proposed garden shed, and the proposal for a brick wall was contrary to Plan policies DH1 and DH2. It noted that the proposed increase in off-street parking space is contrary to Local Plan policy T2. Read comment here. The applicant subsequently amplified the proposal and removed the expanded parking space. The Forum made a further comment offering qualified support for the proposed brick wall, provided it was less than 2m high. Read second comment here. Applicant revised plan to keep wall height same as existing 2m fence.

Revised plans approved. 

 

Yes  

Garden Flat, 15 Thurlow Road

2019/5705/P

Forum objected that the proposed extension was overly large, failing to be subordinate to the main property, contrary to Plan policies DH1, DH2 and NE3 and to the Fitzjohns Netherhall Conservation Area Statement. Read comment here

Application was approved. Camden considered the extension a 'subordinate addition.'

 

No 

1 Gayton Crescent

2019/5774/P

Forum objected that the proposed design was contrary to Plan policies DH1 and DH2 and that the proposed extension would be damaging to the Conservation Area. Read comment here

Application withdrawn

 

 

Flat C, 8 Tanza Road

2019/5547/P

Forum objected that proposed front dormer would damage the roof line and be contrary to Plan policy DH1 and the South Hill Park Conservation Area Statement. Read comment here

Application withdrawn

 

 

3 Upper Terrace

2019/5332/P

 

Forum objected that proposed set-back faux mansard roof enclosure was too high, out of scale and excessive, contrary to Plan policies DH1 and DH2. Read comment here

 

Application withdrawn

 

 

18A Frognal Gardens

2019/5348/P

 

Forum objected that the proposed height, mass, materials and design were out of keeping with the character of the area and damaging to the conservation area, contrary to Plan policies DH1 and DH2. Read comment here

 

 

 

72 Hampstead High Street

2019/5232/P

2019/6253/P

Forum objected that proposed change of use from A1 to residential is contrary Plan policy EC1 (4). Read comment here

Plan withdrawn. Subsequent plan (2019/6253/P) submitted for change of use at 1st floor from ancillary retail (Class A1) to self-contained mixed office/financial service unit (Class B1a/A2). Forum did not object and this proposal was approved.

 

 

Yes   

33 Willow Road

2019/5141/P

Forum objected that proposed extension fails to enhance or protect listed terrace and is contrary to Plan policies DH1 and DH2. Read comment here

Application refused

 

Yes  

Basement flat, 41 Nassington Road

2018/0696/P

Forum expressed concern that proposed garden pod was not in keeping with the conservation area and was contrary to Plan policies DH1 and DH2. Read comment here

Camden granted permission

 

No 

Flat 1, 114 Fitzjohn's Avenue

2019/0350/P

Forum did not submit a comment

Camden refused application for conversion of ground floor three bed unit with first floor two bed unit into a single unit (C3) because it was contrary to Neighbourhood Plan policy HC1 (housing mix) and to several policies of Camden local plan. Appeal lodged.

 

Yes 

Wellside, Well Walk

2019/4731/T

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

Application refused

 

Yes 

Flat 3, 15 New End

2019/4341/P

 

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

Application withdrawn

 

 

Maisonette Basement and Ground Floor

9 Thurlow Road

2019/3093/P

 

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.

Camden approved provided that “biodiversity protection and enhancement measures shall be installed in accordance with appendix 2 of approved Protected Species & Habitat Survey ref. CE1352 dated 12/11/2019. The protection and enhancement measures shall then remain permanently in place, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local authority.”  Tree replacements required.

 

The Plan was considered and further biodiversity measures required but the Council did approve the building. See: decision

Flat 1, 9 Carlingford Road

2019/2854/P

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

Necessary tree reports were provided, and Camden approved plans subject to tree protection measures. The tree was required to be retained.

 

 

Yes 

1 Gayton Crescent

2018/3232/P

Forum did not submit a comment

Camden refused permission for a glass extension on the grounds that the proposal was contrary to D1 (Design) and D2 (Heritage) of London Borough of Camden Local Plan 2017; and policies DH1 (Design) and DH2 (Conservation areas and listed buildings) of Hampstead Neighbourhood Plan. Appeal was dismissed.

 

 

Yes

116 Heath Street

2019/3365/P

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

 

 

 

2nd floor flat, 9 Thurlow Rd

2019/3108/P

Forum objected that new dormers would be damaging to conservation area, contrary to Plan policy DH1 and Netherhall Fitzjohns Conservation Area Statement. Read comment here

Camden refused permission. Appeal lodged and refused.

 

 

Yes

16-18 Holly Hill

2019/3836/L

Forum supported proposal to restore railings surrounding Holly Hill garden. Railings listed as 'at risk' by Heritage England. Proposal would be in accordance with Plan policies DH2 and DH3. Read comment here

Application approved 

 

 

Yes

55 Heath Street

2019/3214/P

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

Proposed development was deemed permitted development in accordance with Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015.

 

Objection was 'duly noted and addressed' but was not ‘relevant material objection’ as application was to ascertain whether development lawful. In a planning application, objection would be relevant. 

Flat 1, 114 Fitzjohn's Avenue 

2019/0350/P

Forum did not submit a comment on the initial application but commented on the appeal that the proposal was contrary to Plan policy HC1 (Housing Mix) and Camden policy H7 (Large and small homes ) because it would eliminate a two-bedroom flat as a self-contained dwelling. Read comment here

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. Appeal lodged.

 

 

Yes

10-11 Wildwood Grove

2019/3015/P

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

Refused and warning of enforcement action issued. Hardstanding contrary to D1 (Design), D2 (Heritage) and CC3 (Water and flooding) of Camden Local Plan and policies DH1 (Design) and DH2 (Conservation Areas and Listed Buildings) of Hampstead Neighbourhood Plan.

 

 

 

Yes

21 South End Road

2018/6087/P

Forum objected on the basis that application failed to protect the amenity of neighbours, contrary to Plan policy DH1. Read comment here

Refused on the basis that proposal would harm the amenity of neighbours. Appeal was dismissed

 

 

Yes

21 South End Road

2019/1359/P

Forum objected to retrospective application regarding air conditioning unit as failing to support the amenity of neighbours. Read comment here

 

 

 

Branch Hill pond

2019/2965/P

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

 

 

 

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

2019/2375/P and 2019/2491/L

Forum 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. On 1 June 2020, the Forum submitted a comment to the Planning Inspectorate after the applicant appealed against Camden's decision. Read second comment here.

Application refused. Appeal lodged.

 

 

Yes

2 Cannon Place

2019/2742/P

Forum objected to proposed widening of garden wall to provide off-street parking as contrary to Local Plan, Conservation Area Statement and Neighbourhood Plan. Read comment here

Approved after applicant revised proposal to remove widening of crossover, loss of the boundary wall and additional car-parking. 

 

 

Yes

Land adjacent to Jack Straws Castle

2017/2064/P

 

Forum objected that proposed development was contrary to emerging Plan policies DH1 and DH2, failing to enhance conservation area and negative impact on heritage assets. Read comment hereForum's comment was part of Planning Inspectorate's appeal process. 

Developer lodged appeal after non-determination by Camden, which indicated it would have refused permission because the bulk, form and design of proposed new houses would be harmful to adjoining listed buildings and conservation area; it would not comply with Camden policies D1 and D2 and Hampstead Plan policies DH1 and DH2. Appeal was withdrawn.

 

 

 

 

Yes

9 Pilgrim's Lane

2019/1606/L and

2019/1103/P

Forum objected that proposed extension to listed dwelling was contrary to Plan policy DH2, failing to protect or enhance a building that makes a positive contribution to the conservation area. Read comment here.

Application withdrawn

 

 

29 Willow Road

2019/0911/P  

Forum objected that proposed new street-level bin storage area was contrary to Plan policy DH2, failing to protect a feature that makes a positive contribution to the conservation area. Read comment here

 

 

 

9 Nassington Road

2018/6076/P

 

Forum did not submit a comment

Refused: proposed hip-to-gable roof extension would be incongruous and visually intrusive, unbalancing symmetry with adjoining property, 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. 

 

Yes

1 Lyndhurst Rd

2019/0969/P 

 

 

Forum objected that proposed cross-over and parking space was contrary to Local Plan T2, Conservation Area Statement and Plan 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 

  Yes

Jack Straws Castle 

12 North End Way,  Application from Heathside School

2019/0730/P

 

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

 

 Application withdrawn

   

1 The Mount

2018/5218/L

 

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.’

 

Yes

Jack Straws Castle  12 North End Way

2018/5808/P

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

 

 

 

42 Willow Road

2018/5507/P

 

Forum did not submit a comment.

Refused: 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.’ Appeal lodged and dismissed

 

Yes

Magdala Tavern, 2A South Hill Park

2018/6320/P

Forum 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 application  number 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.’

 

 

Yes

7 St Crispin’s Close

2018/5932/P

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. 

 

Yes

2nd floor flat, Mount Tyndal, Spaniards Road

2018/6318/P

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

Application approved

 

Yes

20 Rosslyn Hill

2018/5120/P

 

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

2018/4177/P

 

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.

 

Yes

Flat 1, 3 Carlingford Road

2018/4888/P

 

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.

 

Yes

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

 

Yes

Bosinney            Gayton Road

2018/1611/P

 

Forum did not submit a comment.

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. 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. 

 

Yes

Camden ERUV

2016/1436/P

 

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

Application approved subject to 106 agreement.

 

No

12 Willoughby Road

2018/1723/P

 

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.

 

Yes

28 Willoughby Road

2018/3478/P

 

 

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.

 

Yes

6 Streatley Place

2018/2859/P

 

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

2018/3061/A

 

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.’

 

Yes

11 Mansion Gardens

2018/3010/P

 

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

 

 

 

13 Kemplay Road

2015/4373/P

 

 

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

Granted

 

No 

38, 39 and 40A Hampstead High Street

2018/0613/P

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.

 

Yes

Flat A, 43 Hampstead High Street

2018/1341/P

 

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.

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.