Barnet, Borough of Towers – surely a local election issue?

7 Apr 2026
Written by Robin Bishop

The tsunami of tall buildings that started 20 years ago in West Hendon and Brent Cross is now breaking on the northern suburbs of Barnet. Above are samples: High Barnet Place and Great North Leisure Park, both refused by the Council but called in by the Mayor of London; and Edgware town centre, approved by the Council. Their transformation of our borough, visually and socially, should surely be a local election issue on 7 May.

The Mayor has referred the decisions on High Barnet Place and Great North Leisure Park to his Deputy, Jules Pipe, who’s on record as supporting high-density schemes at Arnos Grove and Stanmore. We’re concerned about the conflict of interest, and with Barnet Residents Association have written to him to say so. Read our full letter to him below.

Mayor Kahn is keen to improve his house-building record and recently announced reductions in the proportion of affordable housing to 20% of the total; the previous minimum was 35% (currently offered at High Barnet). He’s also lifted a requirement in his London Plan for all flats to be dual-aspect – a regrettable lowering of their quality threshold.

The Labour Council’s rejection of the High Barnet and Great North Leisure Park applications indicated its awareness of the growing strength of public opposition to overdevelopment. We understand that it has asked the Mayor to respect the Council’s resounding decisions (by 8 votes to 1 and 8 to 0 respectively) to refuse both applications.

Housing deserves to be a major issue in May’s local elections – but design quality and appropriateness to its neighbourhood are just as important as quantity.

Some excellent new housing has been built recently in Barnet. Brook Valley Gardens, 931 High Road and Edgewood Mews (L-R below) show what can be done by building at high density but retaining a human scale.

But High Barnet Place won’t do that. What it would deliver, if approved by the Deputy Mayor, is a row of slabs that will brutally dominate our gentle, historic town and its green surroundings.

Now that the local election campaign has begun, the public hearing can’t be held until after the vote on Thursday 7 May (in practice, probably June at the earliest). The Barnet Society & Barnet Residents Association intend to submit a joint written statement beforehand and to speak at the hearing with a single voice, as we did at the Barnet Strategic Planning Committee in December. Individuals who have previously made written representations about the application either to Barnet Council or directly to the Greater London Assembly (GLA) can also request to speak.

You can show your concern about the crisis in affordable housing and harm to our neighbourhood and heritage assets by joining in the National Housing Demonstration on Saturday 18th April 1pm In Central London. Sign up here https://www.housingdemo.org/ for the Assembly point.

You can also help mitigate the impact of the Great Northern development by signing this petition to save trees on the site boundary.

Joint letter by the Barnet Society & Barnet Residents Association, 28 March 2026

For the attention of Jules Pipe, Deputy Mayor of London

Dear Mr Pipe,   

We write on behalf of the Barnet Society and the Barnet Residents Association regarding your decision to call in this planning application for Stage 2 review.

We recognise the reasons for the Mayor’s recusal. However, delegation to a Deputy does not resolve the acknowledged conflict of interest. The application relates to TfL land, and TfL forms part of the GLA group. Given your strategic responsibility for planning and your publicly expressed support for the programme of developing station car parks, there is a perception risk that the decision-making process lacks the necessary distance and objectivity. This concern is heightened by your prior public statements on LinkedIn and elsewhere indicating that the High Barnet proposal “will deliver” key benefits. You have expressed similar sentiments in relation to the Arnos Grove and Stanmore schemes. Even if unintended, such language gives rise to a perception of pre-judgment. Confidence in the integrity of the review process depends not only on independence and fairness but on the clear appearance of independence and fairness.

Barnet’s Strategic Planning Committee refused the application primarily because of its fundamental conflict with the adopted Local Plan regarding height and townscape impact. That policy position was established through an evidence-based assessment and endorsed by the Planning Inspectorate in examination. Reliance on the Hillingdon case cited by the applicant and officers was misleading as Hillingdon never undertook an assessment of their site. If strategic intervention were now to override the Local Plan without compelling and transparently evidenced justification to demonstrate why Barnet and the Planning Inspectorate may have got it wrong, the credibility of plan-led decision-making across London would inevitably be weakened.

We also remain concerned that certain material planning considerations were ignored or presented in a misleading manner prior to refusal, including:

  • failure to properly test the visual impact of the eleven-storey block on the skyline and on the setting of the listed St John the Baptist Church, including the omission or manipulation of key viewpoints;
  • no recognition that the elevated topography of the High Barnet station site materially increases the perceived scale and dominance of the buildings;
  • misleading claims regarding improved drop-off and pick-up arrangements, which would reduce existing informal capacity and risk congestion on the A1000;
  • There are also evidently inadequate features of the scheme that were not properly addressed in the documentation provided by the applicant or in the officer’s report to committee;
  • creation of homes of unacceptably poor safety and quality in terms of layout, detailed design and amenity;
  • minimal improvements to modal inter-connectivity, accessibility and safety that would be negated by loss of the car park.

We emphasise that we do not oppose redevelopment of the station car park in principle. Our concern is with the scale, form and long-term consequences of this particular scheme.

You will appreciate the wider significance of this case. As Mayor of Hackney you previously expressed strong opposition when London Mayoral intervention overrode local planning judgment on the Bishopsgate scheme that you considered “far too high” and inappropriate to its context. The present situation raises closely analogous concerns regarding the balance between strategic objectives and the integrity of local democratic decision-making.

Given the strength of local opposition, the adopted policy context, and the acknowledged governance sensitivities, we respectfully urge that the review process gives full and transparent weight to these issues before any determination is reached.

Yours sincerely,

Robin Bishop, Planning & Environment Lead, The Barnet Society

Gordon Massey, Planning Officer, Barnet Residents Association

Write Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *