A West Hendon restaurant has won planning permission to remain in a former pub after an inspector found insufficient evidence that the drinking establishment had the value needed to trigger the relevant pub protection policies. The decision concerns O’hanlons on West Hendon Broadway in Barnet and was issued on 14th October 2026.
Inspector P Barton allowed the appeal by Soliman Gamal Eldin against Barnet Council’s refusal, granting permission for the change from public house to restaurant and rear ventilation duct. The restaurant was already operating when the inspector visited. This is therefore a retrospective permission, with enforceable conditions, rather than an announcement of a future opening.
For nearby residents, the outcome also brings requirements to control kitchen noise, vibration, cooking odours and waste collection. I would read those safeguards alongside the permission itself: the West Hendon restaurant has won its appeal, but continuing the use depends on meeting the conditions.
Why the West Hendon restaurant appeal succeeded
The first question was whether losing the pub was unacceptable. London Plan policies protect pubs with heritage, cultural, economic or social value, and Barnet’s own pub policy also addresses that loss. Where the relevant protection applies, authoritative marketing evidence is needed to demonstrate that there is no realistic prospect of the building being used as a pub in the foreseeable future.
That starting point matters. A pub is not simply another empty commercial unit, and the inspector did not say that every owner can avoid marketing it before seeking a different use. The issue here was whether the evidence established the particular value that engaged the policies.
The council said the former pub had operated approximately between 2008 and 2022 without planning permission. The appellant did not dispute that account, and the inspector accepted it on the evidence available. However, the decision identifies little evidence about the pub’s role locally, including community events, social connections or its importance to the local economy.
The inspector was not convinced that it held heritage value, given its relatively recent operation and the absence of contrary evidence. The building was also not registered as an Asset of Community Value. That fact formed part of the assessment; it should not be read as a universal test that an unregistered pub lacks community value.
In paragraph 9 of the official appeal decision, the inspector found “no compelling argument that the public house held either a heritage, cultural, economic or social value”. As a result, authoritative marketing was not required in this particular case.
The West Hendon restaurant decision therefore turned on the evidence about this premises, rather than a finding that pub protection has disappeared. The inspector found no conflict with London Plan policies HC6 and HC7 or Barnet Local Plan policy CHW04. Other policies cited by the council on the night-time economy and community infrastructure were not determinative of this issue.
Kitchen extraction had to protect upstairs neighbours
The premises sit within a commercial parade in a local centre, with two upper floors. The inspector observed that some upper floors in the parade appeared to be residential. A kitchen extraction duct had been fixed to the rear wall, with its fan discharging above the roof ridge.
Noise and odour assessments were submitted with the appeal. The inspector accepted them because they did not substantially alter the proposal and the council had an opportunity to comment. This is a useful procedural distinction: additional evidence can help explain a scheme without turning it into a fundamentally different application.
The noise assessment recommended measures including an attenuator on the fan’s discharge side and anti-vibration and shock isolators for the duct and fan. The odour assessment called for a high level of control, including suitable filters and an ultraviolet ozone odour control system.
Barnet argued that the reports should not remedy the lack of information at application stage and said its environmental health officers had not reviewed them. The inspector nevertheless found their contents appropriate and their conclusions reasonable and proportionate. There was no contrary technical evidence sufficient to undermine them.
Permission for the West Hendon restaurant is consequently tied to implementing those measures. I would not describe the extraction system as acceptable without that qualification: the inspector’s conclusion expressly depended on the mitigation being carried out.
Deadlines and operating hours remain binding
The six conditions include compliance with the approved drawings and a refuse collection scheme. That scheme must be submitted for council approval within three months of the decision and implemented within three months of approval. If no scheme is approved within five months of the decision, the restaurant use must cease until an approved scheme is implemented.
The noise mitigation and odour control recommendations must each be implemented within six months of the decision. Their conditions also require the restaurant use to cease if the requirements are not met, until the stipulated approval and implementation requirements are satisfied. The measures must then be retained and maintained.
Customers may be admitted only between 9am and 11pm from Monday to Saturday, and between 9am and 10pm on Sundays and bank or public holidays. Deliveries, collections, including refuse, and loading or unloading are restricted to 7am to 6pm on weekdays and 9am to 6pm on Saturdays. The delivery condition provides no Sunday window.
The West Hendon restaurant conditions include provisions suspending the specified time limits during a legal challenge to the decision or a relevant decision under those conditions. Anyone responsible for compliance should check the full wording, rather than relying on a headline or a simplified deadline list.
A decision about one pub and its evidence
An interested party raised concerns about a shortage of drinking establishments and community hubs locally. The inspector found no substantiated evidence that changed the conclusions, while acknowledging concerns about precedent. Each case still requires assessment on its own merits and the evidence about the individual pub.
For another owner considering a change of use, I would start with the actual lawful use, the applicable local policies and evidence of community value. For neighbours of the West Hendon restaurant, the practical documents to watch now are the required refuse arrangements and implementation of the extraction safeguards. The appeal grants permission, but it leaves specific continuing obligations.
0 Comments