|||
Is the Hampstead Neighbourhood Plan effective?
Flask Walk
This page lists 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 the relevant documents on Camden’s website. Follow other links to see the Forum’s comments and other relevant documents.
The outcome is given where known. A green background indicates that the Hampstead Neighbourhood Plan’s policies were followed; red, that they were not; blue, that the application was withdrawn.
Refused
Forum did not comment. Camden said the ladder/parapet was ‘visual clutter’ damaging the house and the Conservation Area.
Refused
Forum did not comment. Camden said the proposed alterations would damage the Conservation Area.
Refused
Forum did not comment. Camden said the proposed extension was ‘an incongruous and unsympathetic addition’.
Refused
Forum objected that the proposed rooftop terrace damaged neighbours’ amenity.
2024/0452/P and 2024/2811/P and 2024/4314/P
Forum objected to proposed pool in basement. First two applications withdrawn. Third application registered.
Refused
Forum sought additional measures to support sustainability. Camden found the proposed extension ‘an incongruous addition’ with excessive glazing.
Withdrawn
Forum suggested the applicant take measures to improve biodiversity.
Forum supported plans but expressed concern about loss of features in the former Magistrates Court, as well as noting neighbours’ worries about overlooking. Forum would support solar panels if proposed.
Approved
Forum suggested installation of heat pump as part of major restoration. Heat pump was later added to proposal.
Approved
Forum supported changes to long-empty former bank branch
Forum objected to size of proposed outbuilding.
Approved
Forum objected to scale and location of proposed garden building
Approved
Forum objected to proposed air conditioning units and withdrew objection when the applicant clarified that the units would not be used for cooling.
Withdrawn
Forum objected to demolition of existing extension and removal of bay window.
Approved
Forum objected to proposed boundary wall changes. Camden approved after plan amended.
Forum expressed support for restoration but objected to arrangements of rooms in main building, relative sizes of the four properties, lack of light study, lack of attenuation tank.
Forum objected to retention of infill in front lightwell and extension in rear.
Withdrawn
Forum supported the proposal.
Refused
Forum did not comment. Camden refused as contrary to plan policies DH1 and DH2.
Withdrawn
Forum objected that proposed extension would unduly reduce garden size and paving would reduce biodiversity; in addition, it would reduce amenity, contrary to Plan policy DH1.
Refused
Forum did not comment. Camden refused, saying that the proposed open lightwell and railings would contravene Camden policies as well as Hampstead Plan policies TT2, DH1 and DH2.
Refused
Forum did not comment. Camden refused on the grounds that proposed changes to roof would harm historic composition and appearance, contrary to Plan policies DH1 and DH2.
Approved
Forum noted that the proposed rear extension would consume most of the garden, and that no Design & Access Statement had been provided. Camden approved after size of extension reduced.
Refused
Forum objected that the proposed garden building was too large. It would inhibit biodiversity and leave no room for the growth of trees, contrary to Plan policies NE2 and NE3.
Refused
Forum did not comment. Camden said the proposed facade and front boundary works would harm the building, street scene and Conservation Area, contrary to Plan policies DH1 and DH1. Appeal lodged and dismissed.
Refused
Forum did not comment. Camden said proposed window replacements would harm Conservation Area and were contrary to Plan polices DH1 and DH2.
Refused
Forum did not comment. Camden said proposed change of balustrade from metal to glass would harm Conservation Area and was contrary to Plan polices DH1 and DH2.
Refused
Forum did not comment. Camden said proposed roof alterations would be inappropriate additions, contrary to Plan policies DH1 and DH2.
Approved
Forum did not comment. Camden refused to allow replacement of original roof slates by new slates and solar slates as contrary to Plan policies DH1 and DH2, and issued warning of enforcement. Appeal lodged, supported by Forum. Appeal upheld and planning permission granted.
Refused
Forum did not comment. Camden said the proposed new house would contravene several Camden policies, and Plan policies DH1, DH2, BA3 and TT2. Later, a new application for a new house was approved.
Approved
Forum objected to proposed mansard roof as contrary to Plan policies DH1 and DH2. Camden approved after changes to design of mansard roof.
Refused
Forum objected to the proposed front extension as contrary to Plan policies DH1 and DH2.
Approved
Forum objected to felling of hornbeam as contrary to Plan policy NE2, which states that robust justification is needed.
Withdrawn
Forum objected to the painting of an original C19th facade as contrary to Plan policies DH1 and DH2.
Refused
Forum did not submit a comment. Camden said the proposed rear extension would harm the appearance of the building and the conservation area, citing Plan policies DH1 and DH2, and would harm the amenity of neighbours.
Non-determined, would have refused
Forum objected to proposed glazed covering as contrary to Plan policies DH1 and DH2. Camden said covering would harm building and front garden setting and would fail to preserve conservation area. Appeal lodged and dismissed.
Forum objected to the permanent loss of commercial space to residential, contrary to Plan policy EC1
Withdrawn
Forum expressed concern that size of garden building could affect neighbouring habitat, contrary to Plan policy NE4.
Approved
Forum objected on several grounds including loss of garden, impact on biodiversity corridor, extensive terracing, impact on trees from basement, contrary to several Plan policies. Camden approved after changes made to landscaping plan.
Approved
Forum submitted two comments, first questioning air conditioning unit and emphasising need for construction management plan, and secondly objecting to the volume of the upward extension and the impact on nearby residences as contrary to Plan policy DH2.
Refused
Forum did not submit a comment. Camden said the proposed extension was of excessive bulk and scale, and would cause loss of outlook to neighbouring property, and would threaten a mature tree, contrary to Plan policies DH1 and DH2
Refused
Forum objected that insufficient information was given to determine impact on neighbouring property, and that proposed extension would consume too much of garden, contrary to Plan policies DH1 and DH2.
Approved
Forum objected to proposed internally illuminated projecting sign as contrary to Plan policy EC2. Read comment here. Application approved after proposal modified.
Approved
Forum objected that the façade facing Keats Grove would be too high, and the overall mass would rival and diminish the heritage asset to its right. The proposal would damage the setting of the listed property, and was contrary to Plan policy DH2.
Approved
Forum objected that proposed side extension was excessive in width, height, depth, mass and scale, as well as the proposed white rendering, contrary to Plan policies DH1 and DH2. Camden approved after changes made to design of extension.
Refused
Forum did not submit a comment. Camden ruled that the proposed dormer would harm property’s character and appearance, contrary to Camden plan D1 and D2 and Neighbourhood Plan DH1 and DH2.
Refused
Forum did not submit a comment. Camden said proposed extension would not be subordinate to building, would remove important townscape gap, unbalance rhythm of terrace, and damage the conservation area, contrary to Camden plan D1 and D2 and Neighbourhood Plan DH1 and DH2. Appeal lodged.
Refused
Forum objected that proposed roof extension would add an additional storey to a building that already contributed negatively to the conservation area and was contrary to Plan policy DH1.
Approved
Forum objected to proposed rendering on rear and side elevations as contrary to Plan policies DH1 and DH2. Applicant withdrew rendering plans.
Withdrawn
Forum objected that height and scale of proposed tower blocks would damage views from Hampstead Heath that are subject to numerous protection measures, and would violate Plan policies DH1, DH2 and NE1.
Refused
Forum objected to addition of three parking spaces as contrary to Camden policy T2 and to the applicant’s commitment to a car-free development.
Approved
Forum objected that proposed rear extension would reduce biodiversity and damage amenity of neighbours, contrary to Plan policies DH1, DH2 and NE4. Applicant later modified proposal and removed rear extension.
Approved
Forum objected that proposed full-width rear extension was contrary to Plan policies DH1 and DH2.
Approved
Forum objected to elements of proposals, including air conditioning unit and potential extra parking space. Application approved after modifications.
Refused
Forum objected to overlarge rear extension not allowing for planting of trees, contrary to Plan policies NE2 and NE4; Forum also objected to glass enclosure on roof as contrary to policies DH1 and DH2.
Refused
Forum did not submit a comment. Application for condenser units refused (with warning of enforcement action) as noise disturbed amenity of neighbours contrary to Camden plan and Neighbourhood Plan policy DH1.
Approved
Forum asked Camden to consider carefully the noise potentially caused by proposed air conditioning units.
Approved
Forum supported revised proposals which replaced plans that the Forum had opposed but Camden had approved. The new proposals satisfy Plan policy DH1.
Approved
Forum objected that linking the two houses would make Netley Cottage ancillary and result in loss of a separate dwelling, contrary to Plan policy HC1 and to Camden local plan. It would alter the character and structure of two listed buildings, contrary to Camden plan policies D1 and D2.
Approved
Forum recommended additional work on Basement Impact Assessment in accordance with Plan recommendations, in light of flooding risks. Camden approved subject to requirement that applicant to submit details of Sustainable Urban Drainage System showing how water-run off will be attenuated.
Approved
Forum objected to proposed new door and staircase as contrary to policies DH1 and DH2 of the Hampstead Neighbourhood Plan.
Withdrawn
Forum objected to erection of permanent kiosk for flower selling stall beside open space as contrary to Plan policies NE1 and DH2.
Refused
Forum objected to felling of two sycamore trees that are part of the Plan’s Biodiversity Corridor A and an historic tree line. Felling would be contrary to Plan policies NE2 and NE3.
Approved
Forum objected to proposed illuminated internal hanging sign as contrary to Plan policy EC2. Approved after plans modified.
Refused
Forum expressed concern that proposed telecoms equipment would render planned roof terrace partially unusable.
Forum objected to mass of proposed infill development and lack of clarity regarding restoration of original front boundary wall.
Approved
Forum expressed concern that extension would have negative impact on neighbour’s amenity, contrary to Plan policy DH1. Application approved after proposal modified.
Approved
Forum objected that proposed garden office would further diminish garden space already reduced by previous development.
Withdrawn
Forum objected that proposed side extension would damage Conservation Area and a building making a positive contribution, contrary to Plan policies DH1 and DH2.
Approved
Forum objected to size of proposed garden building and impact on listed building and its setting, as contrary to Plan policies DH1 and DH2. Approved after dimensions reduced.
Refused
Forum objected to proposed new house as damaging to the Conservation Area and biodiversity, as well to other elements.
Approved
Forum objected to removal of sycamore tree as contrary to Plan policies NE2 and NE3.
Approved
Forum objected to proposed new house on grounds of massing, scale, design and basement. Approved after modifications to original design.
Refused
Forum did not submit a comment. Application for rear extension refused as contrary to Camden local plan and Plan policies DH1 and DH2.
Forum objected to proposal to build a large new house to replace garages as contrary to Plan policies DH1, DH2 and NE1.
Approved
Forum objected to illuminated signs outside two school branches as contrary to Plan policies DH1, DH2 and NE4. Approved after revision to eliminate illumination.
Approved
Forum objected to this and two related applications for retrospective work as contrary to numerous policies in Neighbourhood Plan and Local Plan. Forum objected in more detail to the retrospective application 2020/2165/P, objecting to the extension already built and demolition of front boundary wall to create unauthorised parking space. Camden granted partial and conditional approval after modifications to plans, while some issues remained subject to further applications and enforcement action.
Approved
Forum noted it was unclear if applicant proposed to remove part of existing boundary wall, which would be contrary to Camden Plan policy T2. Planning officer confirmed with applicant that this would be unacceptable.
Withdrawn
Forum objected that proposed extensions failed to enhance conservation area and were damaging to the heritage asset, contrary to Plan policies DH1 and DH2.
Refused
Forum objected to proposed tree works, noting that development work had damaged an important chestnut tree in garden contrary to Plan policy NE2.
Withdrawn
Forum objected that proposed entries into Netley Cottage were contrary to Plan policies DH2 and HC1, and Camden policy D2.
Approved
Forum objected that the mass, scale, design and materials of proposed new house were contrary to Plan policies DH1 and DH2, and that the proposed basement was contrary to policy BA1.
Approved
Forum did not submit a comment. Advertisement application refused because proposed internal illuminated fascia would detract from the building, streetscene and conservation area, contrary to Plan policies DH1 and DH2. Appeal lodged and upheld. The inspector determined the proposal complied with Plan policies.
Withdrawn
Forum objected to proposed swimming pool building as contrary to Plan policies DH1 and DH2. Objected to proposed excavation and openings into Grove Lodge as damaging to listed buildings, contrary to Camden policies D1 and D2. Objected to de facto unification of Grove Lodge and Netley Cottage as contrary to Camden housing mix policies and Plan policy HC1.
Withdrawn
Forum objected that proposed rear extension would damage neighbour’s amenity, contrary to Plan policies DH1 and DH2. Forum also objected to garden changes.
Refused
Forum did not submit a comment. Application refused as lightwell would damage listed building for no public benefit, contrary to Plan policy DH2.
Approved
Forum commented that proposed lightwells to rear basement required a basement construction plan in view of excavation depth and closeness to neighbouring property. Approved following withdrawal of associated application 2020/2666/P and revisions of plans and basement impact assessment.
Approved
Forum objected to proposed infilling of front well area as uncharacteristic of the street and contrary to Plan policies DH1 and DH2. Forum separately objected to removal of pier in front boundary wall. Application approved after proposals altered.
Refused
Forum objected to proposed new dwelling adjacent to Metropolitan Open Land as contrary to Plan policies NE1, DH1 and DH2, as well as policy A2 of Camden Local Plan.
Refused
Forum did not submit a comment. Application refused as contrary to Plan policies DH1 and DH2, and Camden policies D1 and D2.
Approved
Forum commented that proposed extension was contrary to Plan policy DH1 on protecting amenity and privacy of neighbouring properties.
Approved
Forum commented that proposal to demolish front boundary wall and create two off-street parking places was contrary to Plan policies DH1, DH2, NE2 and NE4, as well to Camden policy T2. Approved after proposal revised to remove new crossover and additional parking.
Refused
Forum objected to proposed pruning of ash and sycamore, and to tree works already carried out, as contrary to Plan policy NE3. Camden served an emergency tree preservation order on the entire site.
Approved
Forum objected to proposed front porch as damaging to heritage asset and against Plan policy DH2. Approved after modifications.
Refused
Forum objected to proposed external air conditioning unit on first floor as contrary to policies CC2 and D1 of Camden Local Plan.
Refused
Forum objected that proposed mansard roof extension retained same features as previous withdrawn application and was contrary to Plan policies DH1 and DH2. Appeal against refusal dismissed.
Refused
Forum objected to height and siting of 15m monopole as contrary to Plan policies NE1, DH1 and DH2. Appeal against refusal dismissed.
Withdrawn
Forum objected that the proposed extension was nearly identical to application previously refused, and remained contrary to Plan policies DH1 and DH2.
Withdrawn
Forum objected to proposed shed to house air conditioning unit as contrary to Policy CC2 of Camden Local Plan and to HNP policies NE3 and NE4.
Approved
Forum objected that the proposed design of the façade was uncharacteristic of area and contrary to Plan policies DH1 and DH2.
Refused
Forum objected to proposed side extension on grounds of design, restriction of views and basement construction. Appeal against refusal dismissed.
Approved
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. Refused, but appeal lodged and upheld.
Forum expressed concern that 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.
Withdrawn
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.
Approved
Forum objected to damage that would be caused to listed neighbour’s property and listed building, contrary to Plan policies DH1 and DH2.
Approved
Forum objected to height of railings as contrary to Plan policies DH1 and DH2. Approved after proposal revised.
Approved
Forum objected to proposed breaking of front boundary wall to make an opening for gate as contrary to Plan policies DH1 and DH2. Approved after this aspect of plans removed. But see above for subsequent related applications.
Approved
Forum objected that proposed widened dormer windows would damage the heritage asset and conservation area, contrary to policies DH1 and DH2. Approval after windows modified.
Approved
Forum objected to the bulk and prominence of the proposed mansard roof extension as contrary to Plan policies DH1 and DH2. Approved after scale of extension reduced.
Approved
Forum objected that plans insufficiently detailed and that proposed front dormer was contrary to Plan policies DH1 and DH2. Approved after revisions.
Refused
Forum objected that 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.
Withdrawn
Forum objected that proposed two-floor extension was too large and contrary to Plan policies DH1 and DH2.
Refused
Forum did not submit a comment. Camden refused on the basis that 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.
Approved
Forum requested that Camden attach a condition to proposed extension that a tree be replaced. Approved with requirement.
Refused
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). The Forum submitted an additional comment. Appeal lodged.
Refused
Forum objected to proposed extensions as contrary to Plan policy DH2. They would distort the proportions of building noted as making a positive contribution to the conservation area. Appeal against refusal dismissed.
Approved
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. New plans submitted and application approved.
Approved
Forum objected to replacement of wooden sash windows with aluminium ones as out of context with neighbouring dwellings and contrary to Plan policies DH1 and DH2.
Withdrawn
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.
Refused
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. TPOs were served.
Refused
Forum did not submit a comment. Camden refused extension citing detrimental impact on character of the area, contrary to policies DH1 and DH2 of Neighbourhood Plan.
Approved
Forum objected to 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. Application approved after wall height lowered.
Approved
Forum objected that proposed height and massing of building would affect streetscape and damage amenity of neighbouring 4A, contrary to Plan policy DH1. Following amendments to the proposal, the Forum commented that it was still concerned about massing and scale. Application refused, but appeal lodged and upheld.
Refused
Forum objected to felling of ash tree as contrary to Plan policy NE2. Tree Preservation Order served.
Approved
Forum commented that proposal contrary to Plan policy HC1 as it would result in loss of a self-contained dwelling. Approved after modification.
Refused
Forum commented that retrospective application for an extension was unacceptable within a designated Local Green Space. Warning of enforcement action issued. Appeal dismissed.
Refused
Forum commented that 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. Appeal against refusal dismissed.
Withdrawn
Forum commented that extension by virtue of scale and design would be damaging to both the listed building and its listed neighbour as well as the setting.
Approved
Forum commented that the proposal for a brick wall was contrary to Plan policies DH1 and DH2. The proposed increase in off-street parking space was contrary to Local Plan policy T2. Approved after modifications.
Approved
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 Conservation Area Statement.
Withdrawn
Forum objected that the design was contrary to Plan policies DH1 and DH2 and that extension would be damaging to the Conservation Area.
Withdrawn
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.
Withdrawn
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.
Withdrawn
Forum objected that the proposed height, mass, materials and design of new building were out of keeping with the character of the area and damaging to the conservation area, contrary to Plan policies DH1 and DH2.
Approved
Forum objected that change of use from A1 to residential was contrary Plan policy EC1(4). Proposal was withdrawn and replaced by change of use to office unit.
Refused
Forum objected that extension would fail to enhance or protect listed terrace and was contrary to Plan policies DH1 and DH2.
Approved
Forum expressed concern that garden pod was not in keeping with the conservation area and was contrary to Plan policies DH1 and DH2.
Refused
Forum objected to proposed severe pruning of trees on the Neighbourhood Plan’s Important Tree List, as contrary to Plan policies NE2 and NE3.
Withdrawn
Forum objected to proposed roof extension as contrary to Plan policies DH1, DH2 and the Hampstead Conservation Area Statement.
Approved
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, and to Fitzjohns Netherhall Conservation Area Statement and Local Plan policies A3 and D1. The Forum later noted that the applicant was planning to remove at least four trees. Approved subject to biodiversity protection and enhancement measures and tree replacements.
Approved
Forum expressed concern that the proposal did not account for tree in garden. Tree was required to be retained.
Refused
Forum did not submit a comment. Camden refused permission for a glass extension as contrary to Plan policies DH1 and DH2. Appeal against refusal dismissed.
Approved
Forum objected to retention of security roller grille as contrary to Plan policies DH1, DH2 and H40 of Hampstead Conservation Area Statement.
Refused
Forum objected that new dormers would be damaging to conservation area, contrary to Plan policy DH1 and Netherhall Fitzjohns Conservation Area Statement. Appeal against refusal dismissed.
Approved
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.
Approved
Forum commented on the appeal against Camden’s refusal that the proposal was contrary to Plan policy HC1 (Housing Mix) because it would eliminate a two-bedroom flat as a self-contained dwelling. The inspector acknowledged the weight of HC1 but allowed the appeal because of exceptional circumstances.
Refused
Forum objected to retrospective proposal for hard landscaping as contrary to the character of the area and to Plan policies DH1 and DH2. Warning of enforcement action issued.
Refused
Forum objected that application failed to protect the amenity of neighbours, contrary to Plan policy DH1. Appeal against refusal dismissed.
Approved
Forum objected to retrospective application regarding air conditioning unit as failing to support the amenity of neighbours. Camden approved as it considered noise requirements were met but imposed conditions to ensure control levels of noise and vibration.
Approved
Forum supported proposal to restore a pond on land near Branch Hill, in accordance with Plan policies NE1 and NE3.
Refused
Forum objected to change of use to school as contrary to Neighbourhood Plan, Local Plan and emerging London Plan. Forum commented to Planning Inspectorate after applicant appealed against Camden’s refusal. Appeal was dismissed.
Approved
Forum objected to widening of garden wall to provide off-street parking. Approved after modification.
Withdrawn
Forum objected to appeal inspector that development was contrary to emerging Neighbourhood Plan. Appeal against Camden’s refusal withdrawn.
Withdrawn
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.
Approved
Forum objected that 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. Approved after revision to remove street-level bin storage and restore original railings.
Refused
Forum did not submit a comment. Camden refused roof extension as contrary to Plan policies DH1 and DH2.
Refused
Forum objected that cross-over and parking space were contrary to Plan policies DH1, DH2, NE2, NE4.
Withdrawn
Forum objected to proposed change of use to a school as contrary to Plan policies TT1, TT3 and EC1, emerging London Plan and Camden Local Plan.
Refused
Forum did not submit a comment. Camden refused double door opening at lower ground floor as harming listed building and contrary to Plan policy DH2.
Withdrawn
Forum objected to loss of B1/D2 premises to residential.
Refused
Forum did not submit a comment. Camden refused rear spiral staircase as contrary to Plan policies DH1 and DH2. Appeal against refusal dismissed.
Refused
Forum objected to conversion of first floor function room to residential, arguing it should be retained for community use.
Approved
Forum commented that side extension’s mass and height would harm amenity of neighbours and would fail to enhance area’s character. Approved after revision to remove side extension.
Approved
Forum supported division of 6-bedroom flat into two 3-bedroom flats as following Plan policy HC1.
Refused
Forum did not submit a comment. Camden refused extension because scale, massing and glazing would damage setting of listed building and conservation area, contrary to Plan policies DH1, DH2 and NE1.
Approved
Forum expressed concern about silver birch tree in rear garden. Approved with revised plan showing retention of tree.
Approved
Forum objected that ERUV was contrary to Plan policies DH1, DH2 and DH3.
Approved
Forum supported installing plaque but objected to six uplighters as excessive and contrary to Plan Policy NE4. Approved after reduction to two lights.
Approved
Forum objected that Basement Impact Assessment failed to show impact would be less than Burland Scale 1, contrary to Plan policy BA1, and that there was no Basement Construction Plan, contrary to BA2. Construction management plan did not conform with BA3. Approved subject to Section 106 agreement to include requirements for submission and approval of basement construction plan and construction management plan.
Refused
Forum objected that signage already erected was contrary to Plan policy EC2. Warning of prosecution issued.
Withdrawn
Forum objected to proposal to create off-street parking.
Approved
Forum objected that revised proposal was contrary to Plan policy DH2, and pointed to issues with Basement Impact Assessment.
Approved
Forum objected that loss of retail/business space in Hampstead was contrary to Plan policies EC1 and EC2. Granted after proposal modified and change of use to residential withdrawn.
Refused
Forum objected that the proposed extension would cause harm to neighbouring buildings and was contrary to Plan policy DH2. Appeal against refusal dismissed.