Synagogue and extensions at 25 Amhurst Park, London N16

What was proposed

The application proposed a synagogue across the ground and part-first floors, extensions, external changes and solar panels.

“PROPOSAL: Use of ground and part-first floors as a synagogue (Use Class F1(f)); erection of a part single storey side and rear wrap-around extension and a part two-storey rear extension, with associated elevational changes and installation of PV panels. POST SUBMISSION REVISIONS: During the determination of the current application, the following amendments were made:”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site contains a late Victorian villa converted into 11 flats, near Stamford Hill and an Overground station, outside a conservation area.

“The site currently accommodates a large, semi-detached late Victorian villa which has been converted from a house into 11 self-contained residential units, of which those at ground floor would be lost as a result of the proposed development.”

“The site is located along the southern side of Amhurst Park, west of its junction with West Bank which runs along the eastern boundary of the site. The locality is a distinctly busy urban area, being located a short distance from the commercial centre of Stamford Hill and some 50 metres from Stamford Hill Overground Station. Subsequently, the site benefits from a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) of 4 which is classified as ‘Very good’.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

A similar 2024 application was refused and its appeal dismissed, while an earlier house application was granted in 2007.

“2024/0666 - Change of use of 4No ground floor flats (C3) to Synagogue (F1(f)), erection of a two storey rear extension, and basement excavation under extension and existing building, and associated elevational changes. Refused - 22/05/2024 (Appeal dismissed) appeal ref: APP/U5360/W/24/3351371.”

“2006/3369 - Erection of a two storey house with basement with front lightwell and railing surround. Granted - 15/03/2007”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the housing loss was justified, the revised design addressed earlier concerns and impacts could be controlled.

“The principle of development and the associated partial loss of housing have been robustly justified under Policy LP24 of the Hackney Local Plan 2033. The applicant has submitted an exhaustive Alternative Sites Assessment confirming an absence of physically viable or policy compliant non-residential alternatives within the congregation’s strict walking catchment.”

“Concerning neighbouring amenity, the scale and massing of the proposed rearwards extensions have been appropriately designed in order to ensure neighbouring amenity is safeguarded in respect of overshadowing and increasing any sense of enclosure. Furthermore, potential pedestrian and amplified noise impacts are to be strictly controlled by comprehensive planning conditions to minimise any adverse noise and disturbance impacts.”

Officer report

What neighbours said

Fourteen neighbours objected and one supported the application; objections covered housing loss, design, noise, planting, traffic, parking and safety.

“The application was publicised by way of site notice displayed in the vicinity of the site and 166 letters sent to occupiers of neighbouring properties. The number of representations received from neighbours in response to notification and publicity of the application were as follows:”

“Overdevelopment of the site; ● Loss of Housing; ● Impact on character and appearance of the area; ● Impact on outlook; ● Noise and disturbance through associated use and construction works; ● Loss of planting; ● Impact on traffic and parking; ● Pedestrian and highway safety; ● Inspections to ensure building works are as approved (Officer comment: In the event that the planning application is approved, the development will be required to be carried out in accordance with…”

Officer report

Who spoke

The planning officer presented the application; three people spoke against it and two people spoke in support.

Members’ discussion

Members discussed housing loss, noise, parking, consultation, waste, security, alternative venues, flood risk and drainage.

“Wednesday 29 July 2026 demonstrated. The applicant noted that the existing flats are substandard and that a Savills assessment found no alternative sites. • Concerns were raised regarding noise for residents at 27 Amhurst Park. The applicant stated that a noise assessment was submitted and that the new building will include proper insulation. The planning officer confirmed that noise insulation conditions for walls and glazing are recommended.”

“Regarding waste collection, the planning officer stated that proposed refuse and recycling stores in the front of the property are considered acceptable and provide convenient access for both residents and collection operatives. • Councillor Tegtmeyer asked about security and whether a local school could be used as an alternative venue.”

Minutes

The vote

Five councillors voted for the application, one voted against and two abstained.

“For: Cllr Anntoinette Bramble, Cllr Mihai Chereji, Cllr Jas Crowe, Cllr Rachel Maguire, Cllr Benzion Papier Against: Cllr Reiner Tegtmeyer Abstained: Cllr Sheldon Grün, Cllr Kwame Otiende.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee granted conditional planning permission, subject to conditions and completion of a legal agreement.

“To grant conditional planning permission, subject to conditions and completion of a legal agreement.”

Minutes

Conditions and agreement

The recommendation included conditions and a legal agreement covering carbon offsetting, travel-plan monitoring, car-free development and monitoring costs.

“That the above recommendation be subject to the landowners and their mortgagees entering into a Legal Agreement by means of a legal deed in order to secure the following matters to the satisfaction of the Director of Legal, Democratic and Electoral Services:”

“4) Monitoring costs of £1,665 in accordance with the Planning Contributions SPD (2020) to be paid prior to completion of the proposed legal agreement; and…”

Officer report