**Garden Shed Sparks Local Uproar as Pink Floyd’s David Gilmour Faces Planning Dispute in Hampstead**
A seemingly modest garden shed has fuelled a heated planning dispute in one of London’s most distinguished neighbourhoods, with Pink Floyd guitarist David Gilmour at the heart of the row. The celebrated musician, now aged 79, finds himself entangled in a controversy over a replacement outbuilding at his Hampstead residence, drawing sharp criticism from neighbours and local groups.
The situation arose after Gilmour demolished an older summerhouse and shed, opting to replace both with a single updated structure. He has since submitted a retrospective planning application to Camden Council, asserting that the new green-hued building is relatively small and traditionally constructed. In his application, Gilmour maintains that the shed poses no threat to neighbouring privacy and will not block out sunlight.
Despite these assurances, many local residents have objected in strong terms, arguing that the replacement structure is far more conspicuous and intrusive than what previously existed. According to neighbours, the new shed dominates its surroundings, leading to complaints not only about its size but also its proximity to their properties.
Perhaps the most forceful objection has come from the Hampstead Hill Gardens Residents’ Association (HHGRA), who set out their stance online. Their submission urges Camden Council to dismiss the application and insists that the shed be removed straight away, stating that the structure inflicts ongoing harm on local amenity. The residents’ association even accused Gilmour’s application of misrepresenting what has actually been built, claiming it breaches terms of previous planning permissions granted for the property.
Audrey Mandela, the chair of the HHGRA, clarified the organisation’s objections by explaining that the original approval allowed for a shed to be rebuilt on the same footprint as before, a full two metres from the property boundary. In contrast, she claimed, the new building sits directly against the boundary fence, making it more obtrusive and disruptive to neighbours than before.
Local sentiment appears to be largely united in opposition. One resident voiced frustration, labelling the structure “overbearing” and “significantly more visually and physically intrusive” than anything previously permitted. Some residents have even revealed that initial attempts to resolve the matter amicably, by discussing their concerns with Gilmour, were met with little progress. Instead, they suggest the retrospective planning application was prompted only after neighbours threatened formal action.
The prospect of council enforcement seems uncertain, particularly as the application was lodged in anticipation of such moves. However, residents warn that the problem remains unresolved and have called for Camden Council to respond forcefully, rejecting the application on the grounds that the outbuilding’s physical impact is wholly out of keeping with its surroundings.
Some neighbours have additionally raised ecological and aesthetic concerns, noting that the structure’s placement hard against the rear fence hinders efforts to soften its appearance with planting or to support local wildlife. Suggestions have been made that if the shed were moved two metres away from the boundary, there would be scope to introduce greenery that would help shield it from view.
On the other hand, representatives for David Gilmour, through Whiteacre Planning, have argued in favour of the new structure’s design and suitability. They claim it closely resembles the previously approved building in its construction and appearance, highlighting the use of green paint and a shingle roof which, they suggest, will weather to a less conspicuous tone. The firm insists the shed is high quality and appropriate for the site, dismissing suggestions that it will cause overlooking, invade privacy, or cast unwanted shadows.
In their defence, Gilmour’s representatives have called for the application to be “granted without delay”, asserting the project aligns with both local and national planning regulations. As of yet, Camden Council has not made a decision or given a timeline for when it might resolve the dispute.
This episode shines a light on the high stakes of planning disputes in London’s historic neighbourhoods, even among the most well-known of its residents. The stand-off has spurred debate over how the evolving built environment should be managed, and whether the wishes of individual homeowners can ever fully accord with the character and expectations of the wider community. For now, the fate of Gilmour’s garden shed—and his relations with his neighbours—hang in the balance.