The Planning Committee of Barnet Council met on Monday 17 November 2025 to discuss several planning applications. Key decisions included the approval of a new care home at 84 West Heath Road, subject to a Section 106 agreement, and the refusal of a retrospective application for commercial swimming lessons at 30 Allandale Avenue due to harm to residential amenity. The committee also approved extensions at The Spinney, 25 Granville Road, and 63 Corringham Road, while deferring a decision on a proposed synagogue at 114 Finchley Lane.

84 West Heath Road, NW3 7UJ (Childs Hill)

The committee approved the demolition of the existing building at 84 West Heath Road and the erection of a three-storey building with a lower ground floor for use as a care home. This decision was made subject to a Section 106 agreement, which will secure various contributions and measures including a travel plan, CPZ restrictions, a carbon offset payment, local employment initiatives, and ecological monitoring. The proposal includes 56 beds and aims to provide specialist dementia and elderly care. Concerns raised by objectors regarding the building's scale, massing, and potential impact on trees were addressed through significant design revisions, including a reduced footprint and stepped building height. The scheme also incorporates measures to ensure the use remains as a C2 care home, with conditions and obligations to prevent a future switch to C3 residential use without affordable housing contributions.

30 Allandale Avenue, N3 3PJ (Finchley Church End)

The committee refused the retrospective application for the commercial use of an ancillary swimming pool building for children's swimming lessons at 30 Allandale Avenue. Officers recommended refusal, citing harm to the established residential character and tranquillity of the street due to the continuous presence of a commercial operation within a domestic garden. Concerns were also raised about noise disturbance to neighbouring properties, particularly during evening and weekend hours, and the inadequacy of the submitted noise impact assessment. Despite acknowledging the social value of the facility, especially for children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND), the committee concluded that these benefits did not outweigh the harm to residential amenity and the character of the area.

The Spinney, 25 Granville Road, London, N12 0HR (West Finchley)

Planning permission was granted for a two-storey rear extension and an additional storey to provide a further dwelling at The Spinney, 25 Granville Road. This decision was subject to conditions. The proposal also includes associated landscaping, refuse, recycling, and cycle storage. The committee noted that the proposed building envelope did not form part of previous refusals, and ecological objections had been overcome through required surveys and conditions relating to biodiversity enhancement and tree protection.

29 The Hook, Barnet, EN5 1LQ (Barnet Vale)

The committee approved the application for a part single, part two-storey side and rear extension, following the demolition of the existing garage, and a single-storey front extension at 29 The Hook. The decision was made subject to conditions. The proposal was considered to be subordinate to the existing dwelling and sympathetic to the surrounding area, with no undue adverse impact on neighbouring amenities. The previous refusals for these applications were largely based on the principle of converting the property into flats, which is not part of this current proposal.

63 Corringham Road, NW11 7BS (Childs Hill)

Permission was granted for a single-storey rear extension, alterations to the existing front porch, changes to fenestration, and the installation of an air source heat pump at 63 Corringham Road. The decision was subject to conditions. The proposed extension was considered subordinate in scale and sympathetic to the host property and surrounding area, with no adverse impact on neighbouring amenities or the nearby Hampstead Garden Suburb Conservation Area. The previous refusal reasons relating to the scale and design of a first-floor rear extension and the enlargement of an outrigger were addressed by the revised single-storey proposal.

114 Finchley Lane, London, NW4 1DG (Hendon)

The committee deferred a decision on the application for a change of use from a doctor's surgery to a synagogue, along with the erection of a single-storey side and rear extension and other associated works at 114 Finchley Lane. Officers had recommended refusal, citing concerns about the scale, depth, massing, design, and prominent siting of the extensions, which they believed would appear overly dominant and incongruous, to the detriment of the street scene and surrounding area. However, supporters, including Lord Jonathan Kestenbaum and Rabbi Saul Kelly, highlighted the significant community benefits and the careful design considerations for safety. Councillor Shimon Ryde, the ward councillor, also spoke in support. Following a tied vote on the officer's recommendation to refuse, the item was deferred to the next meeting for further determination.

217 - 219 Golders Green Road, NW11 9BY (Golders Green)

The committee refused the application for the erection of a part three, part four, part five-storey building with a lower ground floor to provide nine flats at 217-219 Golders Green Road. Officers recommended refusal, citing concerns about the bulk, scale, height, and design of the proposed building, which they considered to be out of keeping with the immediate vicinity and harmful to the character and appearance of the area. The previous inspector's comments regarding inadequate quality of accommodation and the absence of an agreement to restrict car parking permits were also noted as not having been overcome.

15 Brunner Close, London NW11 6NP (Garden Suburb)

The committee refused the application to fell an oak tree at 15 Brunner Close. The tree, protected by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO), was identified as the primary cause of subsidence damage to the neighbouring property at 13 Brunner Close. However, objectors, including the tree owner and the Hampstead Garden Suburb Residents Association, argued that the tree had significant amenity and historical value, predating the houses and being integral to the suburb's design. They contended that alternative engineering solutions should be explored and that the insurer's claim was an attempt to avoid paying for repairs. The committee's decision to refuse was based on the high amenity value of the tree and the lack of sufficient justification for its removal, despite the potential financial implications for the council.

84 West Heath Road, NW3 7UJ (Childs Hill)

The committee approved the demolition of the existing building at 84 West Heath Road and the erection of a three-storey building with a lower ground floor for use as a care home. This decision was made subject to a Section 106 agreement, which will secure various contributions and measures including a travel plan, CPZ restrictions, a carbon offset payment, local employment initiatives, and ecological monitoring. The proposal includes 56 beds and aims to provide specialist dementia and elderly care. Concerns raised by objectors regarding the building's scale, massing, and potential impact on trees were addressed through significant design revisions, including a reduced footprint and stepped building height. The scheme also incorporates measures to ensure the use remains as a C2 care home, with conditions and obligations to prevent a future switch to C3 residential use without affordable housing contributions.

30 Allandale Avenue, N3 3PJ (Finchley Church End)

The committee refused the retrospective application for the commercial use of an ancillary swimming pool building for children's swimming lessons at 30 Allandale Avenue. Officers recommended refusal, citing harm to the established residential character and tranquillity of the street due to the continuous presence of a commercial operation within a domestic garden. Concerns were also raised about noise disturbance to neighbouring properties, particularly during evening and weekend hours, and the inadequacy of the submitted noise impact assessment. Despite acknowledging the social value of the facility, especially for children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND), the committee concluded that these benefits did not outweigh the harm to residential amenity and the character of the area.

The Spinney, 25 Granville Road, London, N12 0HR (West Finchley)

Planning permission was granted for a two-storey rear extension and an additional storey to provide a further dwelling at The Spinney, 25 Granville Road. This decision was subject to conditions. The proposal also includes associated landscaping, refuse, recycling, and cycle storage. The committee noted that the proposed building envelope did not form part of previous refusals, and ecological objections had been overcome through required surveys and conditions relating to biodiversity enhancement and tree protection.

29 The Hook, Barnet, EN5 1LQ (Barnet Vale)

The committee approved the application for a part single, part two-storey side and rear extension, following the demolition of the existing garage, and a single-storey front extension at 29 The Hook. The decision was made subject to conditions. The proposal was considered to be subordinate to the existing dwelling and sympathetic to the surrounding area, with no undue adverse impact on neighbouring amenities. The previous refusals for these applications were largely based on the principle of converting the property into flats, which is not part of this current proposal.

63 Corringham Road, NW11 7BS (Childs Hill)

Permission was granted for a single-storey rear extension, alterations to the existing front porch, changes to fenestration, and the installation of an air source heat pump at 63 Corringham Road. The decision was subject to conditions. The proposed extension was considered subordinate in scale and sympathetic to the host property and surrounding area, with no adverse impact on neighbouring amenities or the nearby Hampstead Garden Suburb Conservation Area. The previous refusal reasons relating to the scale and design of a first-floor rear extension and the enlargement of an outrigger were addressed by the revised single-storey proposal.

114 Finchley Lane, London, NW4 1DG (Hendon)

The committee deferred a decision on the application for a change of use from a doctor's surgery to a synagogue, along with the erection of a single-storey side and rear extension and other associated works at 114 Finchley Lane. Officers had recommended refusal, citing concerns about the scale, depth, massing, design, and prominent siting of the extensions, which they believed would appear overly dominant and incongruous, to the detriment of the street scene and surrounding area. However, supporters, including Lord Jonathan Kestenbaum and Rabbi Saul Kelly, highlighted the significant community benefits and the careful design considerations for safety. Councillor Shimon Ryde, the ward councillor, also spoke in support. Following a tied vote on the officer's recommendation to refuse, the item was deferred to the next meeting for further determination.

217 - 219 Golders Green Road, NW11 9BY (Golders Green)

The committee refused the application for the erection of a part three, part four, part five-storey building with a lower ground floor to provide nine flats at 217-219 Golders Green Road. Officers recommended refusal, citing concerns about the bulk, scale, height, and design of the proposed building, which they considered to be out of keeping with the immediate vicinity and harmful to the character and appearance of the area. The previous inspector's comments regarding inadequate quality of accommodation and the absence of an agreement to restrict car parking permits were also noted as not having been overcome.

15 Brunner Close, London NW11 6NP (Garden Suburb)

The committee refused the application to fell an oak tree at 15 Brunner Close. The tree, protected by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO), was identified as the primary cause of subsidence damage to the neighbouring property at 13 Brunner Close. However, objectors, including the tree owner and the Hampstead Garden Suburb Residents Association, argued that the tree had significant amenity and historical value, predating the houses and being integral to the suburb's design. They contended that alternative engineering solutions should be explored and that the insurer's claim was an attempt to avoid paying for repairs. The committee's decision to refuse was based on the high amenity value of the tree and the lack of sufficient justification for its removal, despite the potential financial implications for the council.