An application to build 13 blocks of flats on the former gas works site in New Barnet has ended in another embarrassing defeat.

A High Court judge had no hesitation in throwing out a last-minute appeal by house builders Citystyle Fairview.

New Barnet Community Association is “thrilled” by what it sees as the final vindication of its long campaign against plans to almost double the size of the original development in defiance of the wishes of local residents.

High Court Judge Sir Duncan Ouseley rejected outright the arguments put forward by Fairview’s KC, Reuben Taylor.

His ruling is the latest twist in a 14-year saga over what should be built on this prominent vacant site.

After such a clear judgement against the company, the Save New Barnet Campaign said it was high time Fairview started working with the New Barnet community rather than against it.

Fairview’s request for a judicial review was heard in the High Court’s planning court.

In his ruling Sir Duncan said there were no legal arguments to overturn the decision in July of a planning inspector, John Wilde, who rejected Fairview’s appeal against Barnet Council’s refusal to grant planning permission for a total of 539 flats in blocks ranging from four to seven storeys.

Sir Duncan said the inspector’s reasons for dismissing Fairview’s appeal had simply been rebadged by the company’s lawyer as “errors of law” but none of the grounds were arguable in law.

In fact, the approach taken by the planning inspector has been “unarguable, impeccable” -- a conclusion that was seen as further vindication of the residents’ argument that Fairview had tried to cram in too many high-rise blocks and that this would have a damaging impact on living conditions in the flats, affecting sunlight and daylight, heating and cooling.

Save New Barnet spokesman John Dix, who represented the community association at the planning inquiry, urged Fairview to work with residents to implement an earlier scheme for 371 flats which secured planning approval in 2017.

Mr Dix, together with three colleagues, Fiona Henderson, Nick Hufton, and Karen Miller, had spent weeks preparing for the hearing.

They were delighted when Fairview failed in their challenge to Barnet Council and praised the inspector’s findings.

Mr Wilde said he was in no doubt that a mass of tall blocks of flats would be an unacceptable intrusion into the New Barnet neighbourhood. 

“Overall, I consider that the sheer scale of the proposed development would cause a dislocation within the area, inserting an alien topology of larger mass and scale and disrupting any sense of continuity between the areas to the west and east of the site.”

Mr Dix and his team were disappointed, but not surprised that Fairview went for a judicial review.

“Fairview have probably spent close to £1million on two planning applications, a planning inquiry and hiring a KC, so appealing to the High Court must have had its attractions.

“We do expect now to be meeting with Fairview fairly shortly to discuss their next steps for redeveloping the site.”

In his submission to the High Court applying for the inspector’s decision to be overturned, Mr Taylor, KC, set out where he contended Mr Wilde had mis-interpreted London Plan Policy when considering the degree to which the Fairview redevelopment would harm the overall character of the area.

This failure had “substantially prejudiced” Fairview’s case.

“These errors of law render his decision unlawful, and it should be quashed,” said Mr Taylor.

In refusing to authorise a fresh public inquiry, Sir Duncan dismissed each of the grounds raised by Mr Taylor which had been rejected by the inspector and then “re-badged as errors in law”.

There had been no misinterpretation of planning policy: “The inspector has not arguably misinterpreted or failed to grasp the purport of London Plan Policy.”

In deciding that “none of the grounds are arguable,” Sir Duncan closed off Fairview’s last option to fight off Barnet Council’s objections to the scheme.