Save Chipping Barnet Woodland campaigners delighted by planning refusal for new house in a protected wood close to Hadley Green

An application to build a six-bedroom house in a protected wood between Sunset View and Hadley Green has been rejected by Barnet Council on the grounds it would cause unacceptable harm to a woodland habitat.
Nearby residents mounted a highly publicised campaign to save what they argued was a significant wildlife corridor between the Green and Old Fold Manor golf course.
Over 2,000 people signed a petition against the application and there were multiple objections to the planning department.
Expressing delight at the result, Marianne Nix, one of the lead objectors, said their campaign to save the woodland would now refocus on efforts to ensure it is included in the Barnet Parks and Open Space strategy.
In rejecting the application by Christchurchgrove Ltd, the council says building a house on a one-acre site in the woodland would damage the character and appearance of the Monken Hadley Conservation Area.

When the developers held a public consultation last year to unveil their plans for the proposed house – see above – Stuart Lees, of Alan Cox Architects, told residents steps would be taken to safeguard mature trees on the site, most of which are already covered by tree protection orders.
There would be other measures to enhance the biodiversity of the woodland and as the new house would be surrounded by trees, it would be hardly visible, which had been one of the aims in the design.
Planning permission was refused because the council considered it would result in the unjustified loss and deterioration of protected woodland and to a significant number of trees within a woodland tree protection order.
This would cause “unacceptable harm to the woodland habitat and to the character and appearance of the Monken Hadley Conservation Area.”
Site clearance and loss of vegetation would “irrevocably and harmfully” alter the woodland character, and the siting and size of the new house would appear to be “out of character and appearance” of the conservation area and general locality.
Christchurchgrove Ltd had failed to demonstrate that construction, access and essential services could be delivered in accordance with recognised industry guidance, including standards relating to underground service installation near trees.
“The development would further create substantial post development pressures for the removal and degradation of trees, deadwood, and ground flora, leading to the incremental erosion of the woodland’s ecological and landscape value.”

If the new house had been approved the objectors feared that badgers, bats, mistle thrush and other protected species would be in danger of losing their habitat.
Marianne Nix, who lives next to the woodland, installed a trail camera in her garden when she moved to High Barnet three years ago.
As well as recording hedgehogs scuttling about, there have been shots of badgers – including the picture above, captured on her video camera last New Year’s Eve when fireworks were exploding near the woodland.
So far two of the veteran trees on the site have been verified by the Ancient Tree Register – which supplied the screen shot of Sunset View and the woodland.
Robin Bishop, Planning & Environment Lead for the Barnet Society, commented, “Although we’d worked with the developer and secured some important improvements, scrutiny of the submitted documents left us with many concerns. Ours was one of 279 objections lodged against the application, an impressive number for such an inconspicuous site.
“It’s timely that the Council’s refusal came a day after the Mayor of London published London’s Local Nature Recovery Strategy. Although the spinney isn’t on the LNRS Local Habitat Map, it adjoins Old Fold Manor Golf Course, which is. The LNRS and Barnet Couuncil’s refusal are milestones in growing public awareness of the inportance of nature in cities.”
Tags: #Barnet Council #Biodiversity #Development #Environment #High Barnet #Planning

While I welcome this decision it baffles me why a similar verdict wasn’t reached in relation to the proposed travelers’ site on Green Belt land off Mays Lane.