Synagogue conversion and extension at 114 Finchley Lane, Hendon, London NW4

What was proposed

The application sought a synagogue conversion, a single-storey side and rear extension, front bay changes, air-conditioning units and site facilities.

“Proposal: Change of use of the property from doctors surgery (Class E) to synagogue (Class F1); Erection of a single storey side and rear extension; Alterations to the front bay window; Installation of 3no. air conditioning units on the flank elevation; External amenity space, cycle storage and refuse and recycling facilities (AMENDED PLANS AND DESCRIPTION)”

Officer report

The site

The site is a vacant, detached two-storey property on a prominent corner plot with a rear garden containing a protected ash tree.

“The site consists of a two storey, detached property on a prominent corner plot at the junction of Finchley Lane/Hillview Gardens in the West Hendon ward. The building is set back from the front and east plot boundaries, leaving open space to the front and side, and has no existing extensions. There is dense boundary hedging towards the front and partially down the side on Hillview Gardens.”

“The site has a PTAL rating of 2. The existing property benefits from off-street parking for one car.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

Permission had already been granted for synagogue conversion, while earlier decisions covered residential conversion and the former doctors’ surgery.

“Reference: 24/2126/FUL Address: 114 Finchley Lane, London, NW4 1DG Decision: Approved following legal agreement Decision Date: 31 January 2025 Description: Change of use of the property from doctors surgery (Class E) to synagogue (Class F1). Installation of 3no. air conditioning units on the flank elevation. External amenity space, cycle storage and refuse and recycling facilities…”

“Reference: W12571/01 Address: 114 Finchley Lane, London, NW4 1DG Decision: Approved subject to conditions Decision Date: 29 August 2001 Description: Change of use from residential (C3) to Doctor's surgery (D1).”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the extensions and air-conditioning units would be disproportionate, dominant and harmful to the building and street scene.

“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…”

“1 The proposed development, by reason of the scale, depth, width, massing, design and siting of the extensions and proliferation and siting of the air conditioning units, would result in a disproportionate and unsympathetic addition, appearing overly dominant and incongruous given its prominent corner location, to the detriment of the character and appearance of the host building, the street scene and surrounding area, contrary to Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021) and…”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Three comments supported the proposal, no objections were received, and highways, ecology and environmental health consultees raised no objections subject to conditions.

“Three public comments in support were received, the main comments summarised below:”

“Highways - No objections subject to conditions Ecology - Following amendments and additional information, no objections subject to conditions. Trees - Objection to outbuilding harming the Ash tree. Environmental Health - No objections subject to conditions.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The planning officer presented the report, and Lord Jonathan Kestenbaum and the agent spoke in support of the application.

The votes

The committee voted one for refusal, two against refusal and three abstentions, then two for approval, one against and three abstentions.

“Vote recorded were: 2 for approval 1 against 3 abstentions…”

Minutes

The decision

The application was approved subject to a section 106 agreement, with delegated authority for minor changes after consultation with the chair or vice-chair.

“The Legal Officer in attendance noted that the item had not been permitted and therefore it was further noted that a Member of the Committee would need to move a motion to propose an alternative resolution.”

“RESOLVED that the application be APPROVED subject to s106. 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…”

Minutes