A Finchley extension has won planning permission on appeal, allowing an extra storey above a dental practice on East End Road beside the locally listed Bald Faced Stag pub. Inspector P Barton allowed the appeal on 14th October 2026 after finding that the taller building would preserve the pub’s significance and fit the surrounding street.
The decision overturns Barnet Council’s refusal of application 26/1169/FUL. The additional second floor would provide treatment rooms and staff facilities, with a hipped roof replicating the existing building. For people using the town centre, the immediate change is permission for the practice to grow upwards, subject to three conditions.
I would read this as a decision about how buildings relate to one another, rather than a simple objection to extra height. The inspector considered the pub’s landmark role, the nearby houses and the gaps between buildings. The proposed extension succeeded because those relationships would remain legible.
Why the Finchley extension was acceptable
The appeal building is a detached, two-storey dental practice near the junction of East End Road, High Road and Fortis Green. The inspector described prominent three and four-storey buildings around the junction, with smaller buildings prevailing a short distance along East End Road. The street had variety in roof and eaves heights, with an overall cohesion.
The Finchley extension would sit between contrasting neighbours. The practice stands beside the Bald Faced Stag and part of its car park, a vehicular access and a terrace of two-storey houses. The existing building was noticeably subordinate, partly because of its small footprint and apparently lower floor-to-ceiling heights than its older neighbours.
Adding a storey would not push the ridge markedly above the terraced houses, and it would remain below the pub. The inspector considered that the increased height, relative to the small footprint, would produce a slimmer appearance rather than a building that looked too heavy at the top. Its vertical proportions would also reflect the adjacent houses.
The architectural detailing and matching materials were not disputed in themselves. The disagreement concerned the resulting building’s scale, height and visual prominence. That distinction matters: an extension can copy existing details and still require a convincing explanation of its wider effect on the street.
The pub’s landmark role would remain
The Bald Faced Stag is on Barnet’s Local Heritage List. The decision treats it as a non-designated heritage asset, meaning a building identified for its heritage interest without being on the national statutory list. Its significance includes aesthetic, social and communal values, together with its landmark quality.
The pub is a large three-storey building with an ornate stag sculpture on top. A gap to its west provides physical and visual separation from other buildings along that side of East End Road. The inspector found that the stepping down in scale from the pub towards the terrace, and the gaps, would remain.
The Finchley extension was therefore found to have a neutral effect on the pub’s landmark qualities and its historic role in marking the location. The inspector concluded that the proposal would preserve its significance and have an acceptable effect on the area’s character and appearance.
In the official appeal decision, P Barton said the proposal would not “compete visually with neighbouring buildings”. The reasoning supported compliance with the London Plan and Barnet Local Plan policies on design, character and heritage.
Three conditions, with an extra restriction rejected
The permission requires work to begin within three years of the decision. It also requires compliance with the specified approved drawings and external materials that match the existing building. These are the three conditions imposed on the Finchley extension, rather than an invitation to develop a different design.
The inspector deliberately left the Design and Access Statement and aerial images out of the approved-plans condition. Their purpose was to inform the assessment. I would check that distinction carefully when implementing the permission: material submitted to explain a proposal is not necessarily a document controlling what must be built.
Another proposed restriction would have limited the additional accommodation to treatment and staff rooms. P Barton found no demonstrable harm to justify that control, given that the proposal extended existing commercial premises in a town centre. The restriction was therefore not imposed.
That finding does not establish an unrestricted right to any future use. It explains why this particular additional condition was unnecessary on the evidence. Anyone considering later changes would still need to establish the lawful use and assess the proposal against the relevant planning requirements.
A useful lesson for extensions beside heritage buildings
The Finchley extension also attracted a representation about living conditions. The inspector noted that the council’s officer report had addressed those concerns and that they were not part of the refusal reason. There was no compelling evidence requiring a different conclusion from the council on those matters.
For a similar project, I would show the existing and proposed roof heights together with the adjoining buildings, rather than relying on an isolated elevation. Here, the inspector’s reasoning repeatedly returned to the pub’s prominence, the terrace’s rhythm and the surviving spaces. Those specific relationships explain the outcome.
The Finchley extension is an individual English appeal decision, not a court judgment or a general rule that another storey must be accepted. The full decision, reference 6013355, is the starting point for understanding the permission; our planning appeals guide explains the wider process.
0 Comments