Infill timber structure within existing retaining walls to form home gym and storage outbuilding

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 3 March 2026 by I Ingledew BSc (Hons) Decision by T Law BSc MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 21st April 2026 Appeal Ref: 6002988 22B Ellerdale Road, Camden, London NW3 6BB • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by James Goolnik against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Camden. • The application Ref is 2025/3943/P. • The development proposed is Infill timber structure within existing retaining walls to form home gym and storage outbuilding. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal Procedure 2. 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. Preliminary Matters 3. 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. Main Issue 4. The main issue is whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Fitzjohns Netherhall Conservation Area. Reasons for the Recommendation 5. 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 Queen Anne Revival 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. 6. The garden at No 22B is arranged over two levels. The proposed outbuilding would be positioned on the lower tier and set into the retaining wall which delineates the change in levels. While the retaining wall provides screening from the host property and neighbouring properties, the lower tier retains an open outlook towards the Appeal Planning Officer 6002988 2 University School College to the west, from which the proposed outbuilding would be visible. 7. The two-storey outbuilding would introduce a substantial mass of built form. The existing outbuildings at the appeal property are modest, timber structures that remain subordinate to both the lower tier and wider garden. The proposal would however, by way of its height, width and form, introduce a substantially larger footprint than existing which would overwhelm and dominate the lower garden and therefore would not represent a subordinate addition. With no similar forms of development visible from the appeal property, this would also appear incongruous within the open gardens typical of the CA. 8. The proposed materials would further exacerbate the perception of a sizeable, stand-alone structure rather than a subordinate outbuilding ancillary to the host property, which is itself of modest proportions. Although the appellant has indicated a willingness to consider alternative materials, this would not address the concerns regarding the height and massing of a two-storey form. As such, a change in materials would not mitigate the harm identified arising from the erosion of the spacious quality of the garden. Additionally, a condition restricting the proposal from becoming a separate residential unit would not overcome the harm identified. 9. For the reasons above, the proposal would fail to remain subordinate to the garden or host property and would undermine the contribution the garden makes to the spacious and open character 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 of the National Planning Policy Framework, such harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. 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. 10. The proposal would therefore 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 Policies DH1 and DH2 of the Hampstead Neighbourhood Plan 2025 which, amongst other things, seek to ensure development respects local context and preserves or enhances the historic environment. Other Matters 11. The lower garden of 22B Ellerdale Road is visible from the University School College, a Grade II listed building. Mindful of the statutory duty set out in section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, I have had special regard to the desirability of preserving its setting. The mature vegetation and spacious gardens of Ellerdale Road, of which the appeal site forms part, provide a verdant backdrop to the school, positively contributing to its significance. Nevertheless, given the location and extent of the proposed development, I consider that it would preserve the setting of this listed building and the contribution it makes to its significance. I note the Council had no concerns in this regard either. A lack of harm in this respect, however, does not alter my overall conclusions. Appeal Planning Officer 6002988 3 Conclusion and Recommendation 12. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. I Ingledew APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 13. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. T Law INSPECTOR