The Planning Committee of Barnet Council met on Wednesday 14 January 2026 to discuss several planning applications. Key decisions included the approval of a change of use for a synagogue at 114 Finchley Lane, the construction of three new dwellings at the rear of 35-49 Gainsborough Road, the conversion of a property at 25 Green Lane into supported living accommodation, and the approval of extensions and alterations to a house at 10 Cotswold Gardens.

114 Finchley Lane, London, NW4 1DG

The committee approved the change of use of a former doctor's surgery at 114 Finchley Lane to a synagogue, along with the erection of a single-storey side and rear extension. This decision overturned the officers' initial recommendation for refusal, which was based on concerns about the scale, depth, width, massing, design, and siting of the extensions and air conditioning units, which were considered detrimental to the character and appearance of the area.

Lord Jonathan Kestenbaum spoke in support of the application, highlighting the community benefit and the grassroots nature of the project. Emily Benedek, the agent, reiterated that the extensions were integral to the synagogue's development, designed to be proportionate and respectful to the existing property, and that security measures had been incorporated. Councillor Josh Mastin-Lee, new to the application, sought clarification on resident support and ward councillor engagement, which was provided by Ms. Benedek. The committee ultimately voted to approve the application, with three abstentions.

Land Rear of 35-49 Gainsborough Road, London N12 8AA

Permission was granted for the demolition of existing garages and the erection of three single-storey dwellings at Land Rear of 35-49 Gainsborough Road. The proposal, which includes amenity space and refuse/recycling/bicycle enclosures, was recommended for approval subject to a Section 106 agreement.

The agent, Dominic Dear, explained the evolution of the scheme from a proposal for nine flats to the current three dwellings, emphasizing that the single-storey nature and reduced footprint addressed previous concerns about overdevelopment and impact on neighbours. Concerns raised by residents included overlooking, inadequate access for emergency vehicles, increased traffic, and the potential for the development to clash with the area's Edwardian character. The committee approved the application, with one abstention.

25 Green Lane, Edgware, HA8 7PL

The committee approved the change of use of a dwellinghouse at 25 Green Lane to supported living accommodation for up to eight residents, with associated internal alterations and staff facilities. Officers noted that while there would be a modest impact on the character of the area and neighbouring amenities due to increased activity, this was outweighed by the identified need for such accommodation and the proposal's compliance with other planning criteria.

Objectors raised concerns about safety, the lack of clarity regarding resident profiles and staffing levels, and the potential impact on the neighbourhood, particularly given the proximity to a local school. The agent, Jason Eng, clarified that the facility would be for adults with stable mental health conditions, carefully assessed and supported, and that staff would be present 24 hours a day. The committee approved the application, with two abstentions.

10 Cotswold Gardens, London, NW2 1QR

Planning permission was granted for part single, part two-storey side and rear extensions, the conversion of an existing garage into a habitable room, and a roof extension involving a rear dormer window and front-facing rooflights at 10 Cotswold Gardens. The proposal was considered to be of a proportionate scale and acceptable in terms of its impact on the character and appearance of the area and the amenities of neighbouring residents.

Objectors, including the Golders Green Estate Residents Association, raised concerns about overdevelopment, potential intensification of use (such as an HMO), and the impact on neighbouring amenity. The agent, Lucas Killmek, highlighted that a similar application had previously been approved, establishing a fallback position, and that the current proposal involved a reduction in the depth of the rear extension compared to the approved scheme. The committee approved the application with one vote against.