Case Reference: 3331072

Appeal Decisions
Hearing held on 1 May 2024
Site visit made on 1 May 2024
by A Tucker BA (Hons) IHBC
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 31 May 2024
Appeal A Ref: APP/X5210/W/23/3331072
Gloucester Lodge, 12 Gloucester Gate and 12 & 13 Gloucester Gate Mews,
London NW1 4HG
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as
amended) against a failure to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision on
an application for planning permission.
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT] against the Council of the London Borough of
Camden.
• The application Ref is 2023/1742/P.
• The development proposed is erection of glazed link connecting 12 Gloucester Gate and
12 and 13 Gloucester Gate Mews and associated works.
Appeal B Ref: APP/X5210/Y/23/3331076
Gloucester Lodge, 12 Gloucester Gate and 12 & 13 Gloucester Gate Mews,
London NW1 4HG
• The appeal is made under section 20 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation
Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) against a failure to give notice within the prescribed
period of a decision on an application for listed building consent.
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT] against the Council of the London Borough of
Camden.
• The application Ref is 2023/2290/L.
• The works proposed are erection of glazed link connecting 12 Gloucester Gate and 12
and 13 Gloucester Gate Mews and associated works.
Appeal C Ref: APP/X5210/W/23/3334880
Gloucester Lodge, 12 Gloucester Gate and 12 & 13 Gloucester Gate Mews,
London NW1 4HG
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as
amended) against a failure to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision on
an application for planning permission.
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT] against the Council of the London Borough of
Camden.
• The application Ref is 2023/2155/P.
• The development proposed is external alterations including extension of lift (approved
by application refs: 2020/0441/P and 2020/0427/L) to basement and corresponding
minor increase in size of basement, replacement of fixed glazing with sliding doors to
consented lightwell and installation of associated balustrades, change to material of
mews courtyard elevation from painted brick to fair-faced brick, increase in height of
garage doors on retained elevation of 12 Gloucester Gate Mews, reinstatement of
existing door into Mews from courtyard and reinstatement of pedestrian gate on front
boundary and associated works.
and APP/X5210/Y/23/3334881
Appeal D Ref: APP/X5210/Y/23/3334881
Gloucester Lodge, 12 Gloucester Gate and 12 & 13 Gloucester Gate Mews,
London NW1 4HG
• The appeal is made under section 20 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation
Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) against a failure to give notice within the prescribed
period of a decision on an application for listed building consent.
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT] against the Council of the London Borough of
Camden.
• The application Ref is 2023/2324/L.
• The works proposed are external and internal alterations including extension of lift
(approved by application refs: 2020/0441/P and 2020/0427/L) to basement,
replacement of fixed glazing / swing door with sliding doors to consented lightwell and
installation of associated balustrades, change to material of mews courtyard elevation
from painted brick to fair-faced brick, increase in height of garage doors on retained
elevation of 12 Gloucester Gate Mews, reinstatement of existing door into Mews from
courtyard and reinstatement of pedestrian gate on front boundary and associated
works, internal works including amendment to the layout of south wing at ground floor;
internal amendments to first floor; and relocation of first to second floor secondary
staircase.
Decision – Appeal A
1. The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for erection of glazed
link connecting 12 Gloucester Gate and 12 and 13 Gloucester Gate Mews and
associated works at Gloucester Lodge, 12 Gloucester Gate and 12 and 13
Gloucester Gate Mews, London NW1 4HG in accordance with the terms of the
application, Ref 2023/1742/P, subject to the conditions in the attached
schedule.
Decision – Appeal B
2. The appeal is allowed, and listed building consent is granted for erection of
glazed link connecting 12 Gloucester Gate and 12 and 13 Gloucester Gate
Mews and associated works at Gloucester Lodge, 12 Gloucester Gate and 12
and 13 Gloucester Gate Mews, London NW1 4HG in accordance with the terms
of the application Ref 2023/2290/L and the plans submitted with it subject to
the conditions in the attached schedule.
Decision – Appeal C
3. The appeal is dismissed.
Decision – Appeal D
4. The appeal is dismissed.
Preliminary Matters
5. Appeals A and B relate to the link extension. Appeal A is for the planning
permission and Appeal B is for the listed building consent. Appeals C and D are
for various internal and external alterations. Appeal C is for the planning
permission and Appeal D is for the listed building consent. The appeals for both
proposals were submitted at a similar time and relate to the same building. I
have considered each proposal on its individual merits. However, to avoid
and APP/X5210/Y/23/3334881
duplication I have dealt with the two schemes together, except where
otherwise indicated.
6. An updated version of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework)
was published on 19 December 2023. Its content is largely unchanged in
relation to the main issues of this appeal, so I have not sought the views of the
main parties on this matter.
7. Amended plans for Appeals A and B were submitted before the hearing. These
make modest revisions to the proposal in response to the Council’s concern
about overheating. At the hearing the Council confirmed that it is content for
me to determine these appeals with reference to the revised plans and I
consider that no party would be prejudiced by my doing so. Accordingly, I have
determined these appeals on this basis.
8. Following the submission of these plans and prior to the hearing the Council
confirmed that it no longer objected to the proposal in relation to overheating
and resilience to climate change. Based on my own assessment of this matter I
see no reason to disagree. As such this matter has not formed a main issue of
the appeal.
Main Issues
9. The main issues for all the appeals are the effect of the proposals upon the
significance of the grade 1 listed building known as Gloucester Lodge (Number
12) Gloucester House (Number 14) and attached boundary wall1, and whether
they would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Regent’s
Park Conservation Area.
Reasons
10. Sections 16(2) and 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation
Areas) Act 1990 (LBCA) require the decision maker to have special regard to
the desirability of preserving a listed building or its setting or any features of
special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. Additionally, Section
72 of the LBCA requires special attention to be paid to the desirability of
preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area.
Significance
11. The appeal building is one half of a grade 1 listed building that was built in the
1820s as a single dwelling to the designs of James Burton. An occupant for the
original building could not be found, so it was altered and divided into two
dwellings in 1836. Further significant phases of work were carried out to the
appeal building in the 1930s and 1990s. The original Burton façade with its fine
pediment and columns is of considerable aesthetic interest.
12. The rear façade of the building is plainer. The Council suggests it is of equal
importance to the front façade. The rear has however seen much more change,
including significant alteration in the 1990s, and it certainly did not receive the
same level of attention when originally built as the elaborate public face of the
building. It was not designed to be appreciated from a public place, or across
1 List Entry Number: 1078323
and APP/X5210/Y/23/3334881
extensive grounds and in this respect differs considerably from the building’s
front face and is reflected in its straightforward appearance.
13. A small rear garden separates the rear elevation from a mews building. This is
a modest structure that has been altered considerably, and permission exists to
reface its inner elevation. The rear of the building and the mews building are of
less aesthetic interest. However, the hierarchy of the spaces - ranging from the
highly formal front face of the building to the more modest rear elevation and
then the functional appearance of the Mews building - are still of significance,
as they are characteristics that contribute to the authenticity of the building
and are illustrative of how a fine house such as this would have functioned.
14. Internally, the appeal building retains elements of original fabric in the form of
primary structure associated with its original design and its subsequent division
into two dwellings. Historic England suggest that rarity of the survival of its
internal features when compared with other Nash period properties around the
park contributes to its significance. The appellant suggests however that
although well executed and thought through much of the building’s interior
details are from the 20th century. I note that in the 1930s the building received
a substantial internal remodelling in the Art Deco style, but little evidence of
this remains today owing to further extensive work that was carried out in the
1990s. The significance of its interior is therefore primarily limited to the
overall division of spaces and layout, as well as historic fabric that survived 20th
century interventions such as the staircases.
15. The appeal building stands within the Regent’s Park Conservation Area (RPCA).
The Regent’s Park Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Strategy 2011
(Appraisal) refers to the area as a unique planned composition of landscape
and buildings. It also states that development closest to the Park – and facing
onto it – is of the highest architectural hierarchy. Tall stuccoed façades face the
park, creating a grand linear composition and giving enclosure to the open
space. The appeal building is referred to in the appraisal as a building that
skilfully brings the giant scale of the terraces down to the height of the
residential area of the Park Village. It is therefore a building that makes a very
substantial contribution to the character and appearance of the RPCA.
Appeals A and B
16. The proposal would see a substantial glazed link structure erected between the
rear of the dwelling and the mews building. Connection would be made at two
levels. The lower level would be partly below the external level of the adjacent
garden. An internal walkway would connect the ground floor of the house with
the first floor of the mews.
17. Evidence before me shows that previous glazed structures existed within the
garden, including what would appear to be a substantial building attached to
the rear of the mews. Additionally, the rear of the south wing of the dwelling
looks to have previously been glazed. Thus, a clear precedent for substantial
glazed buildings exists in this area. There was also a link building that
connected the dwelling to the mews that was in place from the 1950s until the
1990s alterations.
and APP/X5210/Y/23/3334881
18. The proposed extension would not pretend to be historic or feature any
ornamentation to elevate its status or confuse its identity. Unlike the building
that previously existed on the back of the mews the extension would not be
prominent to view from the dwelling’s principal rooms and would not therefore
draw the eye from its interior or detract from their formality. At the hearing the
appellant referred to the proposal as both striking and silent. I can agree that it
would be striking insofar as it would be a sizeable high quality building that
would utilise an unusual form and construction type; and that it would also be
appropriately silent owing to its simplicity, lack of decoration and neat location
along the boundary.
19. Its fluid form would relate well to the garden and would be distinct from the
two buildings to which it would connect. Its glazing would provide some
transparency and thus allow views of the ends of the two buildings, sufficient
for the traditional separation between the villa and mews to still be easily
appreciated, aided by its contrasting materiality. I accept that its form is
without precedent and would be quite different from the orthogonal planning of
the host building and those adjacent. This would however allow it to read as a
stand alone element that would provide an interesting contrast to the more
traditional forms that would surround it, in an area that is well contained and
where its visual impact would be limited and inoffensive.
20. The extent of the rear of the mews that would be covered by the extension
would be modest. Its rear façade would still be prominent to view from the rear
of the dwelling and its garden, thus continuing to define the external area and
provide a clear understanding of the relationship between each component.
21. The proposed ground level doors at the back of the dwelling would replace a
window opening that is 1990s in date. Therefore, the proposed doors would not
result in the loss of historic fabric. The proposed glazing would match the width
of the window above and would not appear out of place on the garden facing
elevation. I accept that it would be unusual to find a first floor door on the rear
of a mews; a raised access that could have served as a hayloft door would not
make sense on the building’s inward face. However, this face of the building
has limited historic significance and permission exists for it to be re-faced. The
opening would be contained within the extension and read as a functional and
logical part of the walkway.
22. In terms of the wider impact, the existing rear garden is well contained. There
would be a view of the rear elevation of the extension from the neighbouring
building to the south. From this direction the most direct view would be from
the rearward wing, which would appear to be an ancillary part of the adjacent
terrace and would be unlikely to have been designed to capture an important
outlook. Beyond this it would not be possible to see the extension as it would
be lower than the rearward projection of the neighbouring building. It would be
contained from views at the rear by the mews.
23. The parties are not clear on the extent of visibility between the two buildings to
the north, when looking back from the road. At my visit I saw that this gap is
narrow and occupied by significant vegetation. I consider it highly unlikely for
the structure to be seen from here. Even if it could be glimpsed it would be set
well back and discreet. Its visual impact would be so minor it could not be
and APP/X5210/Y/23/3334881
considered to harm the character or appearance of the RPCA or the setting of
any nearby listed buildings.
24. In summary, the proposal would not harm the significance of the listed building
and would preserve the character and appearance of the RPCA. It would accord
with the requirements of the LBCA and Paragraph 205 of the Framework which
states that great weight should be given to the conservation of a heritage
asset. It would also accord with Policies D1 and D2 of the Camden Local Plan
2017, which together seek to ensure that development proposals are of a high
quality of design that respects local context, character and preserves or
enhances the historic environment.
Appeals C and D
25. This proposal is for a significant number of interventions throughout the
building. These include the relocation of an internal first floor door opening and
the secondary staircase between the first and second floors.
26. The relocation of the door would incur the loss of fabric and an alteration to the
plan form of an original part of the building. I accept that the extent of change
would be modest, that the division of space would not be altered by the
change, and that it is common for doorways to align. Nevertheless, this
intervention must result in some harm, given that it relates to an element of
primary original structure that contributes to the building’s significance.
27. Furthermore, the area of wall that would be affected is thicker than other
lengths of internal load bearing walls. It is not clear why this is the case; the
appellant’s suggestion of structural reasons is not convincing, given that the
wall narrows in thickness alongside the stairs, and yet the loading here is likely
to be similar. The 1990s plan expresses this as a chimney breast. The
uncertainty over the construction of this thicker area of wall is a further matter
that weighs against the proposal.
28. The existing stair that provides access to the second floor could be original to
the building given its position adjacent to the spine wall, although is more likely
to date from the 1830s when the building was divided into two dwellings. It is
nevertheless agreed to be early internal fabric that contributes to the building’s
significance, particularly as so many of the building’s early 19th century fittings
have been lost. A small section of the stair is missing its spindles, but it is
otherwise complete.
29. The proposal would see the stair reconstructed in the same orientation and
close to its existing position. This would be less harmful than relocating it to
the degree previously proposed and its general relationship to the adjacent
rooms and main stair would remain. However, a modest degree of harm would
still arise from moving it from its historic position owing to the impact this
would have on the authenticity of the building and its historic plan form.
30. Third party submissions compare the proposal to the relocation of the stair at a
property that is quite different to the appeal building. In this case the relocated
stair facilitated much more significant benefits to the building and is not
therefore comparable to the proposal before me.
and APP/X5210/Y/23/3334881
31. The Council also has some concern about the division of the principal rear
room. At the hearing it was confirmed that these partitions would be glazed
screens that would not be full height and would therefore retain the proportions
of the room. I am satisfied that this approach could be acceptable, subject to
the provision of additional information that could be secured by condition if the
appeals are allowed.
32. The level of harm arising from both interventions would be modest. In terms of
the Framework the harms would be less than substantial but would
nevertheless be of considerable importance and weight. Paragraph 208 of the
Framework establishes that any harm should be weighed against the public
benefits of the proposal.
33. The proposal would alter the layout of the dwelling for the benefit of its current
occupants. In broader terms it is suggested that the changes would make the
layout more appropriate and convenient and that it is important that its
functionality as a family home is maintained in the face of evolving
expectations. It is suggested that the better adapted a building is to meet
contemporary needs the more likely it will be well maintained.
34. The proposed relocation of the stair would provide a very large single bedroom
suite. The 1990s plans show that the first floor previously provided four large
bedrooms, whereas the plans before me would leave it with just two. I cannot
agree that this would improve the functionality of the building.
35. Moving the door position between the two front rooms would also have no
meaningful impact on the functionality of the building. I cannot therefore agree
that either intervention would be anything more than a private benefit to its
current occupants.
36. In summary, the proposal would fail to meet the requirements of the LBCA as it
would harm the special interest of the listed building. It would also fail to
accord with Policies D1 and D2 of the Camden Local Plan 2017, which together
seek to ensure that development proposals preserve or enhance the historic
environment.
Conditions – Appeals A and B
37. I have had regard to the conditions included within the Statement of Common
Ground (SOCG). I have considered these against the tests in the Framework
and the advice in the Planning Practice Guidance. I have imposed condition 2
for the planning permission to specify the approved plans, to give certainty.
38. Conditions 3 and 4 for the planning permission and conditions 2 and 3 of the
listed building consent are necessary to safeguard the special interest of the
listed building.
39. Condition 5 for the planning permission is necessary to ensure that the
suggested measures to avoid overheating are agreed and implemented. At the
hearing the appellant expressed a preference to leave this condition more
open, so that it would be possible to agree alternative measures. However, I
consider it reasonable to tie the condition to the submitted details as they
provide measures that would satisfy the requirement to avoid overheating, and
they correspond with the approved plans.
and APP/X5210/Y/23/3334881
Conclusion
40. For the reasons given Appeals A and B should be allowed, and Appeals C and D
should be dismissed.
A Tucker
INSPECTOR
and APP/X5210/Y/23/3334881
Schedule of Conditions – Appeal A
1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years
from the date of this decision.
2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance
with the following approved plans:
Existing: PG0010 Rev 01, GL-MAK-XX-LG-DR-AR-PG0999 Rev 01, GL-
MAK-XX-00-DR-AR-PG1000 Rev 01, GL-MAK-XX-01-DR-AR-PG1001 Rev
01, GL-MAK-XX-ZZ-DR-AR-PG1201 Rev 01, GL-MAK-XX-ZZ-DR-AR-
PG1202 Rev 01, GL-MAK-XX-ZZ-DR-AR-PG1204 Rev 01, and GL-MAK-XX-
ZZ-DR-AR-PG1205 Rev 01.
Demolition: GL-MAK-XX-ZZ-DR-AR-PJ1704 and GL-MAK-XX-ZZ-DR-AR-
PJ1705.
Proposed: GL-MAK-XX-B1-DR-AR-PJ2998, GL-MAK-XX-LG-DR-AR-PJ2999
Rev No. 01, GL-MAK-XX-00-DR-AR-PJ3000, GL-MAK-XX-00-DR-AR-
PJ3000A, GL-MAK-XX-01-DR-AR-PJ3001, GL-MAK-XX-02-DR-AR-PJ3002,
GL-MAK-XX-03-DR-AR-PJ3003, GL-MAK-XX-ZZ-DR-AR-PJ3100, GL-MAK-
XX-ZZ-DR-AR-PJ3101, GL-MAK-XX-ZZ-DR-AR-PJ3200, GL-MAK-XX-ZZ-
DR-AR-PJ3201 Rev No. 01, GL-MAK-XX-ZZ-DR-AR-PJ3202, GL-MAK-XX-
ZZ-DR-AR-PJ3203, GL-MAK-XX-ZZ-DR-AR-PJ3204 Rev No. 01, GL-MAK-
XX-ZZ-DR-AR-PJ3205, and PGL-MAK-XX-ZZ-DR-AR-PJ3206.
3) Detailed drawings, or samples of materials as appropriate, in respect of
the following, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority before the relevant part of the work is begun:
a. Full details (plans, sections and elevations) of all new joinery at a
minimum scale of 1:10 and with typical part plan, section and
elevation details at a minimum scale of 1:2, all to be fully
annotated with materials and finishes.
b. Full details of the glazed link extension including typical
construction and glazing details (plans, sections and elevations) at
a minimum scale of 1:10 of the junctions of the building envelope,
the ground-floor construction and the first-floor walkway with the
masonry walls and floor construction of the existing buildings (to
include fully detailed proposed east elevation of 12 Gloucester
Gate and proposed west elevation of 12 & 13 Gloucester Gate
Mews), all to be fully annotated with materials and finishes.
c. Full details of the design for dealing with rainwater run-off from
the extension.
d. Manufacturer’s specification details of all building components and
systems, materials and finishes (to be submitted to the Local
Planning Authority) and samples of those components and
materials to be provided on site.
The relevant part of the works shall be carried out in complete
accordance with the details thus approved.
4) No lights, meter boxes, flues, vents or pipes, telecommunications
equipment, alarm boxes, television ariels, satellite dishes or rooftop
and APP/X5210/Y/23/3334881
‘mansafe’ rails shall be fixed or installed on the external face of the
buildings.
5) Full details of the measures to avoid overheating as set out in the XC02
report (covering letter from HGH Consulting dated 15.04.24) shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Such measures as agreed shall be completed before the development is
first brought into use and shall remain in place and in working order for
the lifetime of the development.
and APP/X5210/Y/23/3334881
Schedule of Conditions – Appeal B
1) The works hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date
of this decision.
2) Detailed drawings, or samples of materials as appropriate, in respect of the
following, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority before the relevant part of the work is begun:
a. Full details (plans, sections and elevations) of all new joinery at a
minimum scale of 1:10 and with typical part plan, section and
elevation details at a minimum scale of 1:2, all to be fully
annotated with materials and finishes.
b. Full details of the glazed link extension including typical
construction and glazing details (plans, sections and elevations) at
a minimum scale of 1:10 of the junctions of the building envelope,
the ground-floor construction and the first-floor walkway with the
masonry walls and floor construction of the existing buildings (to
include fully detailed proposed east elevation of 12 Gloucester
Gate and proposed west elevation of 12 & 13 Gloucester Gate
Mews), all to be fully annotated with materials and finishes.
c. Full details of the design for dealing with rainwater run-off from
the extension.
d. Manufacturer’s specification details of all building components and
systems, materials and finishes (to be submitted to the Local
Planning Authority) and samples of those components and
materials to be provided on site.
The relevant part of the works shall be carried out in complete
accordance with the details thus approved.
3) All new work and work of making good shall be carried out to match the
existing adjacent work as closely as possible in materials and detailed
execution.
and APP/X5210/Y/23/3334881
Appearances
FOR THE APPELLANTS:
Roger Hepher BA MTP BA MTP FRICS MRTPI FRSA AAoU
Executive Director, Hgh Consulting
Ken Shuttleworth DipArch (DIST), ARB, RIBA, Hon FRIAS, HonDDes (DMU), Hon
DDes (UEL), HonDLit (UoN), HonDSc (UoW)
Founder, MAKE Architects
Dorian Crone BA, BArch, DipTP, RIBA, MRTPI, IHBC
Heritage and Design Consultant, Heritage Information Ld
Rose Adams BA (Hons)
Planner, hgh Consulting
Katy Ghahremani BSocSci, DipArch (Dist), RIBA, ARB
Director, MAKE Architects
Daniel Cummins MA (Oxon), MSc, PhD, IBC
Historic Environmental Consultant, Heritage Information Ld
[APPELLANT]
Appellant
FOR THE COUNCIL:
David Peres da Costa BSocSc (Hones) MA Planning Policy and Practice
Principal Planning Officer, London Borough of Camden
Catherine Bond BA (Hons) BArch (Hons) MTP GradDipConsAA IHBC
Principal Conservation Officer, London Borough of Camden
Documents Submitted
1) No documents were submitted during the hearing.
2) After the hearing a further set of the most recent plans was submitted at the
Inspector’s request, to include a revision number.