Hampstead residents raised strong objections to a proposed remodel at 41 Rudall Crescent, focusing on the impact of a new first-floor terrace on neighbouring properties. Following review, the Camden Council Planning Committee's recommendation was to grant conditional planning permission for the remodel application. The application (2025/0301/P), which includes façade alterations, a rear extension, and changes to an existing roof extension, was discussed amid concerns about privacy and precedent at the Planning Committee meeting on Thursday 03 July 2025, according to the Planning Committee Agenda for 3rd July 25.
At the heart of the dispute is the proposed first-floor terrace, which neighbours fear will lead to significant overlooking and a loss of privacy, particularly for properties at 39 and 43 Rudall Crescent, as well as homes on Gayton Crescent. A written submission from Dr Martin Kinston and Dr Emilia Steuerman Kinston, residents of 43 Rudall Crescent, expressed concern that the terrace would create a sharp angle from which people from 41 would be looking directly onto their property. They referenced a previous application (2016/4897/P) where roof terraces were explicitly prohibited to prevent overlooking.
Mr Richard Webb, representing residents at 39 and 43 Rudall Crescent, echoed these concerns in his deputation statement, included in the supplementary agenda. He stated that the new terrace would come right up to the boundary with 39 Rudall Crescent, raised one storey above garden level, and that a side screen would not prevent overlooking into the rear garden. He also noted that the residents at 41 Rudall Crescent already have a rear garden and terrace at the second-floor level. The deputation statement also raised concerns about the use of the roof of the proposed rear ground floor extension as a new terrace.
Bernard Howard, owner of 39 Rudall Crescent, emphasized that the use of the proposed roof as a terrace would cause a complete loss of privacy into the garden of number 39, rendering the rear garden unusable. He argued that Camden Planning's own policy, which aims to safeguard the quality of life for both occupiers and neighbours by permitting development only where it would not adversely affect neighbouring amenity, was being ignored.
The Supplementary Agenda 1 includes the written submission from Dr. and Dr. Kinston, and the deputation statement from Mr. Webb and Mr. Howard.