The picture of the proposed pool, published on Camden’s planning website

PLANS to build a swimming pool in a Primrose Hill garden have sparked outrage among neighbours who say it would be “intrusive”, “inapprop­riate”, and amounts to an “audacious vanity project”.

A homeowner in Regent’s Park Road first applied for planning permission to install the open air pool back in October.

After six letters of objection Camden Council refused the proposal.

But the owner has since appealed that decision, hoping to have it overturned by an independent planning inspector.

If it did get the go- ahead, the pool would sit in the back garden of a five-storey house, where the land belongs to a duplex apartment on the lower ground and ground floors.

Residents in the first, second, third and fourth floor flats were among those who objected to the swimming pool – they collectively instructed Thrings Solicitors to pen a six-page letter on their behalf.

Primrose Hill resident Pam White also objected, saying that the pool would set an “unwanted precedent” in the area and prevent neighbours enjoying the garden view.

She wrote: “The climate in the UK is not normally one which permits outdoor swimming pool activity for young children on many days in the year, making this an audacious vanity project which may well result in scarce use and thus is inappropriate for the area.”

Neighbour Linda Seward wrote that the garden in question had long been a “peaceful haven” that “now resembles a war zone” due to building works on the flat itself.

She raised concerns about the noisiness of the proposed air source heat pump that would warm the water, and dubbed the accompanying timber-clad “plant building” an “intrusive” and “disproportionate” structure.

Justifying its decision to reject the pool, Camden said that paving over the grassy area of the garden would diminish biodiversity and the subterranean water feature could feasibly destabilise surrounding buildings or pose a flood risk.

But in the appeal documents submitted on behalf of the homeowner, Barker Parry Town Planning Ltd wrote that the pool posed no threat to the heritage quality of the conservation area and would not cause any loss of garden space – rather, it would be “used for a different purpose”.

Even before the current building works, the garden was covered predominantly by paving and very little vegetation, Barker Parry wrote, so the pool “would not result in the loss of verdant character and green space that contributes to the character of the conservation area”.

The applicant also submitted a flood risk assessment, and pointed out that this is a low risk area for flooding.