Pink Floyd icon David Gilmour has found himself at the centre of a planning dispute over a contentious garden shed. The legendary guitarist, aged 79, has lodged a retrospective planning application with Camden Council following his decision to dismantle an old summerhouse and shed on his Hampstead property in north London, replacing them with a new structure.
Gilmour’s submission describes the verdant-hued replacement as “of modest size”, “of traditional construction”, and asserts that it is designed to avoid “no adverse impact on neighbouring amenity, such as loss of privacy or overshadowing”. However, this assertion has sparked an outcry among local residents, who claim the new shed is “obtrusive, overbearing, and significantly more visually and physically intrusive than what stood there before”.
The Hampstead Hill Gardens Residents’ Association (HHGRA) has filed a detailed objection online, pressing Camden Council to dismiss Mr Gilmour’s application and demanding the immediate removal of the shed to “stop the continued harm to neighbourhood amenity”. They contend that the application is “deliberately misleading”, alleging that the construction erected by Mr Gilmour does not adhere to the previously granted planning permission for the site.
HHGR chair, Audrey Mandela, states: “Permission was granted to rebuild a shed on its original footprint, approximately two metres from the boundary. However, what has actually been built is abutting the boundary fence, in a substantively different and more intrusive location.”
Residents are up in arms over a contentious structure, with one local stating: “The application should be rejected as the structure now in place is obtrusive, overbearing, and significantly more visually and physically intrusive than what was originally approved or what stood there before.”
They continued to express their frustration, noting: “The matter was raised with the applicant by residents of our road, who hoped to avoid the need for formal action.” The situation escalated when the resident added: “The applicant has reacted by submitting this retrospective application to pre-empt enforcement action.”
Highlighting the community’s concerns, they remarked: “Although we understand that formal enforcement action may now be difficult due to the applicant having approached the Council pre-emptively, that does not remove the fact that the current structure is materially different from what was permitted and is too harmful to amenity given that it provides no benefit other than to the applicant.”
The plea to the authorities was clear: “We urge the Council to send a strong rebuttal here to the applicant.” Other neighbours have lodged objections, with one pointing out that the new shed abuts the rear fence, making it impossible to conceal with greenery unlike the previous structure. Another neighbour insists on modifications to the building to ensure a two-metre clearance behind the shed, arguing it would “provide space for planting and wildlife”.
On the flip side, Whiteacre Planning, supporting Mr Gilmour’s application, argues: “The shed is of a similar design to the previously approved summerhouse.” They further justify the construction, saying: “[It] is painted green to minimise its visual impact and has a cedar shingle roof which will quickly silver down. It is of high quality design and build and is appropriate in this location.”
The correspondence also dismisses suggestions that the outbuilding would have any detrimental effect on neighbouring properties. It declares: “Although the roof of the shed is above the height of the boundary fence, it will not lead to any overlooking, loss of privacy, or overshadowing.”
The letter then concludes that Mr Gilmour’s application ought to be “granted without delay” – given it “complies with all relevant local and national planning policy”. Camden Council has yet to establish a deadline for reaching a decision. Mr Gilmour was contacted for a response.