Community ritual washing facility at Rear Of 39 Alexandra Road, Hendon, London NW4

What was proposed

The application proposed demolishing the existing building and erecting a part single-storey, part two-storey building with a parking turntable.

“Proposal: Demolition of existing building and the erection of part single, part two storey building including the installation of a parking turntable.”

Officer report

The site

The backland site is behind Alexandra Road, borders residential gardens and a primary school, and contains a single-storey communal ritual washing facility.

“The northern and western boundaries of the site adjoin the gardens of properties along Victoria Road, the eastern boundary abuts the rear garden boundaries of No 37 - 39 Alexandra Road, and the southern boundary is shared with Bell Lane Primary School.”

“The existing site, including the access road, measures an area of c490sqm. There is an existing single storey building on the site, sited in close proximity to the rear garden boundaries of 37 - 39 Alexandra Road and the southern boundary with Bell Lane School. The building has a footprint of c95sqm - 5.7m width and 16.5m in length.”

Officer report

Planning history

A related single-storey application was pending, while ritual washing facilities were previously found lawful.

“Reference: 25/0111/FUL Address: Rear Of 39 Alexandra Road, NW4 2SB Decision: Pending Consideration Decision Date: N/A Description: Demolition of existing building and the erection of a single storey new building including the installation of a parking turntable.”

“Reference: 21/6553/191 Address: Rear Of 39 Alexandra Road, NW4 2SB Decision: Lawful Decision Date: 20.01.2022 Description: Ritual washing facilities for the deceased (Mikvah Taharah)”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the building would be overbearing to neighbours, harm the area’s character and represent overdevelopment.

“AND the Committee grants delegated authority to the Service Director – Planning and Building Control to make any minor alterations, additions or deletions to the recommended conditions/obligations or reasons for refusal as set out in this report and addendum provided this authority shall be exercised after consultation with the Chair (or in their absence the Vice-Chair) of the Committee (who may request that such alterations, additions or deletions be first approved by the…”

Officer report

Main planning concerns

Officers considered the two-storey form inconsistent with surrounding low-level rear buildings and harmful to neighbouring outlook, amenity and gardens.

“The Design & Access Statement does highlight the presence of two store buildings in the vicinity, but these are the surrounding residential properties, and the distinction is self- evident. A fundamental characteristic of most sub-urban residential areas is to have the main two storey dwelling at the fore of the site, and smaller scale, subordinate single storey buildings towards the rear.”

“The Residential Design Guidance SPD (Adopted 2016) provides generally guidance for development in residential areas, and with respect to back garden outbuildings it advises that in general, rear garden walls and fences should not exceed 2 metres to protect views and daylight.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The ward councillor spoke in support, followed by the applicant, and members then questioned the speakers and officers.

What members considered

The committee indicated that the building was not overbearing and that the facility would benefit the local community, supporting approval under adopted policies.

“The Planning Officer presented the report. The application was before the Planning Committee on 12 May 2025 and was deferred as the committee indicated that it was minded to approve it for the reason that the proposed building was not overbearing and the development would provide a facility of benefit to the local community, therefore according with policies CDH01 and CHW01 of the adopted Barnet Local Plan (2025). The report was updated with conditions.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee approved the application.

“The vote for approval of the application was as follows:”

“RESOLVED that the application be APPROVED”

Minutes