Posted on Leave a comment

Co-ordinated fight back by community groups organising a united front against plans for high rise flats at High Barnet station

Community groups are presenting a united front in objecting to Transport for London’s planning application to build five high-rise blocks of flats on a car park and strip of land alongside the London Underground station for High Barnet.

To highlight the strength of opposition to the “wrong scheme in the wrong place” a rally is to be held on the morning of Sunday 7 September at the lower entrance to the tube station starting at 11.30 am.

Barnet Council has extended until Friday 19 September the deadline for residents to respond to the scheme.

After widespread complaints about the decision to organise public consultation during the summer holidays when so many people were likely to be away, the council acknowledged extra time should be given to ensure residents understood the full impact of the application being made by TfL’s property subsidiary, Places for London.

Leading the way in opposing the scheme are the Barnet Society and the Barnet Residents Association which have both been preparing a detailed list of objections to the application to provide 283 flats in five high storey blocks, one of which would be 11 storeys high.

They say the five blocks of flats are “unattractive and overbearing” and completely out of scale and character for the locality with the eleven-storey block rising above the skyline.

Gordon Massey, who prepared a point-by-point summary of the association’s objections, says the proposed development is a “poorly designed blot on the landscape” with the expectation that the flats would be overwhelmingly purchased by buy-to-let landlords.

Living conditions on the new estate would be poor as 75 of the flats would be single aspect facing west, raising issues of noise, heat and ventilation with the likelihood that with all windows having to remain closed, they would rely on mechanical ventilation.

“We are not opposed to the redevelopment of this site for housing, but the people of High Barnet and future residents of this development deserve something much better than this.”

Mr Massey’s conclusions are in line with those of Robin Bishop, who leads for the Barnet Society on planning and the environment, and who thinks the scheme would have a brutal impact on the existing townscape and greenery of High Barnet, Underhill and Barnet Vale.

“Our main objections to the scheme are to the alien scale and character of the designs; its unsustainability as a neighbourhood; its unsafe environment; and the lack of community benefits.”  

Other community groups warn of grave consequences if the development goes ahead with the danger that sandwiching high-rise blocks of tiny flats onto a strip of land between the tube line and Barnet Hill would, in their opinion, be destined to create the slum housing of tomorrow.

Hands Off High Barnet, a campaign group which co-ordinated objections to a 2019 scheme to build seven blocks on the site – a plan which was later reduced and withdrawn – fears the same mistakes are being made once again.

Of the 283 flats being proposed, 68 would be of only one bedroom when High Barnet desperately needed more family homes.

The loss of a well-lit station car park would pose a particular danger for women returning to High Barnet late at night.

“After all the objections we made to the last application, TfL are still not making it any easier for disabled passengers who need to be dropped off or collected at the station,” said Kim Ambridge, one of the founders of Hands-Off High Barnet.

John Dix of the Save New Barnet Campaign – which fought long and hard trying to prevent too many new flats being squeezed into the Victoria Quarter site – said he thought the station scheme was “really shocking”.

The children’s play space in the new development was the “absolute bare minimum” for under 11s.

“One of the children’s play spaces is a steep slope – it drops by 3.3 metres from top to bottom – with steps down the middle underneath one of the blocks.

“They call it the ‘undercroft’ play area, but the wind assessment says it is a problem area and is not for lingering.

“How any human being could classify this dark, draughty underpass as a play area is beyond me.

“The children’s play area for the 12-18-year-olds is, wait for it…500 metres away on Barnet playing fields.”

Mr Dix said he hoped Barnet Councillors read the details of the application, refuse to give approval, and tell the developers to go back to the drawing board.

To raise awareness of TfL’s application and publicise the rally on Sunday 7 September volunteers hope to distribute a leaflet – see below – to around 4,000 households in High Barnet.

Community groups across High Barnet organising co-ordinated fight back against plans for high rise blocks of flats at High Barnet tube station
Posted on 4 Comments

Landing on Barnet Hill soon – unless the Council can be persuaded to refuse it

This development would permanently alter the identity of Chipping Barnet. If approved by the Planning Committee, it would set an extremely damaging precedent for the town centre and neighbouring areas. We have until Friday 19 September to comment on it – see how to do so at the end of this post.

The planning application

Places for London (PfL, a partnership between Transport for London & Barratt London) want to build 283 flats over the whole of the present car park in blocks of 5 to 11 storeys high. You can see the full application at https://publicaccess.barnet.gov.uk/online-applications/ (reference no. 25/2671/FUL).

At a public meeting on 20 March Dan Tomlinson MP was neutral about the scheme, but asked PfL to deliver more benefits for the community. Examples suggested were moving the northbound bus stop closer to Station Approach and providing bus access to the station forecourt. Frustratingly, the application offers only some benches and better lighting to the pedestrian ramp and a couple of extra disabled car bays.

Mr Tomlinson has told the Society that he is reviewing the application and will reassess his position.

The Barnet Society’s response

The Barnet Society strongly objects to the application.

We do so with regret because we respect Barnet’s need for new homes and support good design. We also accept the principle of building at transport hubs, and would welcome improvements to this prominent site.

But the designs submitted are not appropriate for this location. They amount to massive overdevelopment, to the great detriment of the character of Chipping Barnet and with almost no compensating benefits to the local community. Our main objections are summarised below.

An alien imposition

The designs are entirely out of scale and character with our green and historic neighbourhood.

At the top and bottom of Barnet Hill, few buildings exceed three storeys, but those proposed would rise over three times as high. They would totally dominate the existing townscape and greenery that make High Barnet, Underhill and Barnet Vale special. They would break the historic skyline from several viewpoints.

Two of the published visualisations are particularly misleading. View 2 (from Underhill) shows only three of the five blocks. Our own version (above) shows a truer picture.

View 14 (from Pricklers Hill) hides St John the Baptist’s church, which currently dominates the skyline, behind a tree. Below, our version demonstrates how the development would compete with – and detract from – the traditional preeminence of the church.

We do not object to gentle densification of our neighbourhood, but this would be a brutal and irreversible step-change.

It would also be a clear breach of Barnet Council’s own recently-adopted Local Plan, which expressly rules out buildings over 7 storeys at High Barnet Station.

The developers’ claim that ‘the tallest building serves [as] a welcoming and attractive gateway from the Station’ is a sublime example of marketing oversell. The trees lining both sides of Barnet Hill already provide a distinctive and beautiful southern ‘gateway’ to our town. The Station needs no such a grandiose landmark: its reticence is part of its charm.

An unsustainable neighbourhood

The applicants and their designers describe their proposals as an ‘exciting well-connected and highly sustainable residential neighbourhood’ (Planning Statement 2.6). On the contrary, it is disconnected and unsustainable at almost every level.

The constraints of the A1000, Northern Line, TfL structures, unstable geology and sloping topography force the applicants to propose a height and density that would be expensive to build, service and maintain for decades to come.

Squeezed between the busy, noisy and polluted road and railway, the new homes could not economically provide healthy environments internally or externally. The promised Passivhaus standards require levels of construction skill and expenditure that we doubt would be attainable.

Flat layouts are often poor.  Some are only single-aspect and, facing north-east, would have very poor sunlight and natural ventilation. A high proportion face south-west with potential to over-heat in summer. Expensive acoustic mitigation and mechanical ventilation (costly to run) would be necessary.

Only 35% of the total number of flats would be ‘affordable’. No guarantees are provided to restrict buy-to-let or overseas investors. At least some of the flats would probably become over-occupied, resulting in a population of nearly 1,000 with no gardens and minimal amenity space.

It would have a high proportion of children but only token outdoor play space. Outdoor play and social space for older children, young adults and the elderly would be negligible. Family stress would increase.

A truly sustainable scheme would place public health, community energy and low waste at its heart. It would be complemented on-site by a rich range of habitats and community gardening, and supported by excellent public transport connections and cycleways. None of these are on offer. Biodiversity net gain could only be achieved by substantial off-site provision. Residents would lack most of the physical, social and economic infrastructure necessary for a settled, inclusive and intergenerational neighbourhood.

An unsafe environment

We are unconvinced that there would be a net improvement in safety. Removal of all general car parking spaces would increase risks to women and other travellers with concerns for their personal safety, especially in late evening and early morning.

Although the ‘woodland walk’ would get an upgrade, the new recessed benches are likely to encourage misuse. The long and contorted strip between the new flats and the tube tracks would invite anti-social behaviour. With its many dark recesses and corners, the project would rely heavily on CCTV cameras and external lighting to meet Secure by Design standards.

Lack of community benefits

Connectivity between tube, buses, taxis and private vehicles would remain poor. Direct bus access to the Station forecourt is ruled out. TfL make no commitment to moving the northbound bus stop closer, or to a cycle lane on Barnet Hill. Pedestrian and wheelchair accessibility would be only slightly improved. Congestion would worsen.

New demand for local surgeries, nurseries and schools would be significant, with no certainty of the developer’s contribution to meeting it.

Loss of car parking

We are unconvinced by the rationale for removing the car park. The only spaces left would be a few disabled bays and (ironically) those for TfL staff. Yet park-and-ride is an option highly valued by residents on the fringes of Barnet and Hertfordshire and boosts tube use. Without improved public transport and connectivity to the Station consequences would be severe, both for travellers and for residents near the Station.

The inconvenience and distress caused by CPZs has lately been illustrated at Underhill South. Similar protests can be expected from residents in the proposed Zones E (Barnet Lane & Sherrards Way) and F (Meadway, Kingsmead, Potters Lane, Prospect Road, Leicester Road & King Edward Road) as well as others affected in Barnet Vale and parents of pupils at St Catherine’s RC Primary School, many of whom have to drive considerable distances due to its wide catchment area.

Postwar mistakes repeated

The mistakes of postwar estate planning – not least in the nearby Dollis Valley Estate – have been forgotten. If approved, in a few years’ time future Barnet residents, politicians and planners will wonder how this development was allowed to happen.

How you can comment

Have your say one of these ways:

  1. on the Council’s planning portal (ref. no. 25/2671/FUL) via the Comments tab;
  2. email comments direct to planning.consultation@barnet.gov.uk;
  3. post your comments to the Planning Officer: Sam Gerstein, Planning and Building Control, Barnet Council , 2 Bristol Avenue, Colindale, NW9 4EW.

In the cases of 2 & 3, be sure to include the application reference no. (25/2671/FUL) clearly at the top plus your name, address and postcode.

Increase the effectiveness of your objection by sending a copy of your comments to our MP dan.tomlinson.mp@parliament.uk and to your local Councillors.

Posted on Leave a comment

Race is on for community groups rallying opposition to “massive” high-rise redevelopment around High Barnet tube station

Overwhelming local opposition is emerging to Transport for London’s latest application to build five high-rise blocks of flats on a car park and land alongside High Barnet tube station.

Since plans were published four weeks ago, the response has been heavily against the scheme for being a “massive overdevelopment” with the tallest 11-storey block being described as “horrendous” and “overbearing”.

But the race is now on among community groups to raise public awareness and marshal their case against the plan before the September 2 deadline for registering comments with Barnet Council.

Ward councillors and High Barnet MP Dan Tomlinson are to be briefed by the Barnet Society and Barnet Residents Association as the two organisations finalise their detailed responses.

There have been some complaints of underhand tactics: Why is a consultation on such a significant application being conducted during the summer holidays when so many residents are likely to be away? 

Some of the comments posted so far online have been in favour arguing that 283 new flats would provide “much-needed housing” and “smarten up” the area.

But comments posted on the Barnet Society website since 23 July – and direct responses to the society’s draft of its own objections to the plan – indicate mounting opposition.

Issues of greatest concern are the potential harm a massive development might have on the historic character of High Barnet; the loss of the station car park; the smallness of the flats (68 of 283 would be one-bedroom); the lack of community benefit or support for a new neighbourhood of nearly 1,000 people; and the failure to make substantial improvements to public access to the station and connections for bus passengers.

A fuller understanding of the implications of the development by TfL’s subsidiary Places for London is generating additional criticism.

To offset the loss of the station car park – and prevent commuters parking in nearby roads – new controlled parking zones are being proposed for Underhill (Barnet Lane/Sherrards Way) and Barnet Vale (Meadway, Kingsmead, Potters Lane, Prospect Road, Leicester Road and King Edward Road).

There are also increasing doubts about the poor layout inside the blocks and fears that a high proportion of the flats facing south-west could probably overheat in the summer.

Robin Bishop, who leads for the Barnet Society on planning and environment, says the five blocks of flats would have a brutal impact on the existing townscape and greenery of High Barnet, Underhill and Barnet Vale.

The tallest block of 11 storeys – seen superimposed in orange on the photograph above of the view taken from Pricklers Hill –would “break the historic skyline from several viewpoints and compete with, and detract from, the traditional pre-eminence of St John the Baptist parish church”.

“Our main objections to the scheme are to the alien scale and character of the designs; its unsustainability as a neighbourhood; its unsafe environment; and the lack of community benefits.”

Under the approved Barnet local plan, land around the tube station is earmarked for the construction of up to 300 homes but with a height limit of seven storeys.

Breaking that undertaking by approving the plan would be regarded by the scheme’s opponents as a grave betrayal by Barnet Council.

Community groups marshalling opposition to massive high rise flats at High Barnet tube station before deadline for comments on 2 September.

If the application is approved, it would mean the closure of the container yard operated by Container Safe Ltd which rents out around 120 self-storage containers on what was originally the station coal yard.

Paul and Bev Meehan, who run Container Safe, say that under the terms of their lease for the site from TfL they are subject to six months’ notice.

The couple faced the same uncertainty in 2020 when an application was made to build 292 flats on the site – a plan that was subsequently withdrawn.

They point to the fact that they do provide a vital service for many small businesses and traders in and around High Barnet who store equipment and supplies inside the containers.

Storage space has become increasingly expensive for small businesses which find the rents being demanded on new industrial units are prohibitive.

Comments on the plan can be made via the Barnet Council website quoting reference no. 25/2671/FUL.

Alternatively, you can email comments direct to planning.consultation@barnet.gov.uk or post your comments to the Planning Officer: Sam Gerstein, Planning and Building Control, Barnet Council , 2 Bristol Avenue, Colindale, NW9 4EW. In both cases you must also include the application number (25/2671/FUL) and address (High Barnet Underground Station Station Approach Barnet EN5 5RP) plus your name, address and postcode.

The Barnet Society recommends that views should also be forwarded to your local councillors.

Posted on Leave a comment

A thinning out of trees around the wooded entrance to High Barnet tube station was needed on “safety grounds”

Some of High Barnet’s much-loved mature trees have faced a sustained summer assault at the hands of the chain saws of tree surgeons.

A height reduction and the removal of what were said to be overhanging, or dead branches has resulted in a dramatic make-over of the trees at the pedestrian entrance to High Barnet tube station.

After reducing the height of the trees along the station’s wooded frontage in Meadway contractors started cutting back trees at the junction with High Street and Barnet Hill.

The work was said to be necessary because of the overhang of branches and the danger of them falling onto pedestrians or vehicles.

Pedestrian access had to be closed off during the work which also necessitated the installation of temporary traffic lights causing considerable congestion on Barnet Hill.

By the end of the day the path up from the tube station towards the crossroads at Meadway had been transformed… with a much reduced tree canopy.

At the upper end of the High Street a sycamore on the courtyard between the Huddle Cafe and the MinimuMaximuM shop had to be felled because it was dying back and posed a danger.

The tree was self-seeded but dead branches had been falling off for some time and the owners of the land said that the tree had to go as it was an accident waiting to happen.

However, shade from the sun in the seating area beside the Huddle Cafe is somewhat reduced following the tree’s removal.

Posted on 25 Comments

The High Barnet Station car park planning application is in!

Places for London (PfL), the partnership of Transport for London and Barratt London that wants to build on High Barnet Station car park, has submitted a planning application to the Council. Members of the public have until 2 September to comment on it. Above is a visualisation by jtp Architects & Masterplanners.

The designs are basically the same as those exhibited in February-March this year. The Barnet Society’s web post on 17 March set out our views on the development. Our conclusion then was that unless our concerns – especially regarding its overbearing scale, alien character, poor accessibility, and loss of almost all car parking – were addressed, the Barnet Society was minded to oppose the plans.

Since then, PfL have reduced the number of homes from 300 to 283 but increased the height of the tallest block to 11 storeys. They’ve also made some other adjustments to the designs of buildings and landscape. We’re scrutinising the 120-odd documents in discussion with Barnet Residents Association. As soon as we’ve come to a conclusion, we’ll publish a more detailed web post.

Meanwhile, you can view the application on the planning portal (reference 25/2671/FUL). The best documents to begin with are the Summary of Proposals followed by the Design & Access Statement (in 8 parts). Have your say via the Comments tab (but you’ll need to register first).

One drawing we haven’t been able to find so far is a single view of the whole scheme, but cut’n’pasting two elevations gives an overall impression of it from Barnet Hill.

Posted on 2 Comments

The designs for High Barnet Station car park are entirely out of scale and character with our neighbourhood. In return for such disruption, we deserve an accessible and environmentally enhancing transport hub

Following the recent public consultation about proposals for this highly prominent site, Dan Tomlinson MP is holding a meeting for residents to share their thoughts with the landowner, Transport for London (TfL), at 7pm on Thursday 20 March.

Chipping Barnet constituents can register here. Registered attendees will receive details of the location 24 hours before the event.

The designs exhibited earlier this month are still vague in important respects, but at present our community stands to gain very little from such a disruptive development. The Barnet Society has submitted the comments below to the developers, Places for London & Barratt London, on the issues that matter most to us.

Scale and character

The designs are entirely out of scale and character with our green and historic neighbourhood. At the top and bottom of Barnet Hill, few buildings exceed three storeys, but the new ones would rise over three times as high. They would totally dominate the existing townscape and greenery that makes High Barnet, Underhill and Barnet Vale special.

The use of red brick throughout is misplaced respect for local precedents. Queen Elizabeth’s Girls’ School, the Old Courthouse and Tudor Hall are dainty in contrast to the giant scale of the proposed buildings. Less uniform colour might lessen their overbearing impact.

Massing

The 8 & 10-storey blocks proposed contradict Barnet Council’s new Local Plan regarding tall buildings, which indicates a maximum height of seven storeys for this location. Therefore those proposed are too tall, and if approved, the Local Plan would fail at its first test.

While there could be a case for a larger building at the foot of the hill, alongside the railway bridge that already provides a ‘gateway’ to Barnet Hill, we are opposed to anything so tall as being proposed at the northern end of the site, where it would be visible from the historic town centre, the Green Belt of the Dollis valley and elsewhere.

Access

As a development led by TfL, which has direct interests in both the site and the transport and highway arrangements immediately outside it, it is reasonable for the local community to expect an exemplary and holistic approach to the designs worthy of the 21st century.

Considering the size and location of the development and its potential to enhance the neighbourhood, more must be done to remove danger and improve pedestrian and wheelchair connectivity between the tube, buses, taxis and private vehicles. Outside the station building itself, High Barnet is one of the least accessible stations on the network. The nearest southbound bus stop is more than 100 metres away, and the northbound bus (including ones to Barnet Hospital) double that – both up steep pedestrian slopes with narrow footways and problems crossing Barnet Hill.

We have been shown no evidence that buses cannot divert into the station forecourt, as they sometimes do at Finchley Central. The new bus lanes in the Lower High Street will speed up bus travel. Bus-activated traffic lights at the new Barnet Hill/A1000 pedestrian crossing could obviate the need for northbound buses to wait to cross. At the very least, a northbound stop must be provided as close as possible to Station Approach (i.e. the southern vehicle ramp). For certain services e.g. the 234 & 384, an additional step-free stop should be provided on the station forecourt.

Despite the proposed new pedestrian crossing lower down Barnet Hill, access to and from Greenhill Parade and Station Road would be tortuous and frustrating. The distance to bus stops would be especially so for residents at the southern end of the development wanting to reach shops and services in New Barnet, Whetstone and Finchley.

Car parking

We are unconvinced by the rationale for removing the car park leaving only disabled parking. Many Barnet residents, and those in nearby Hertfordshire, live far from a tube or railway station. There are many reasons why people will continue to drive to the station in the future, particularly as this is the end of the line where people come from further afield. Maybe they would or should use buses instead, but front door-to-station door trip time can exceed an hour so this is not realistic in many cases.

The car park at the station allows interchange between different transport modes, and discourages people driving further into London (and taking advantage of cheaper travel zones). Without it, many vehicles will be displaced onto local residential streets, despite the proposed CPZs, or will add pressure to existing town car parks.

Abolition of commuter parking is also likely to lead to more dropping off, waiting and picking-up on an access road already congested at peak times.

Lack of spaces for residents, visitors and 24/7 deliveries would exacerbate this. National guidelines are that 300 new flats would generate an additional 18 parking spaces.

For these reasons we are surprised that proposals did not include a reduced car park, for example in a semi-basement underneath the flats, as has been provided at Colindale and elsewhere in both Barnet and across London.

Housing mix and quality

We need clarity on the mix of housing size and tenure types, their internal planning, aspect and measures to combat noise, poor air quality and overheating.

We also wish to see more detailed floor plans, building sections and landscape proposals to enable us to assess the quality of the development as a whole and its connectivity with neighbouring streets and local amenities. This information also needs to show how a good range of outdoor play would be possible for children of all ages and abilities, that any potential risk of harm to health and safety caused by the electricity transformer in the centre of the site will be adequately mitigated, and that the outdoor realm on the trackside of the housing blocks would not be conducive to anti-social behaviour.

Finally, TfL’s admission (in their 4 March webinar) that overseas marketing of units has not been ruled out undermines a fundamental justification for the development: London’s dire housing needs.

Conclusion

We are unconvinced that this project is economically and socially viable. It is halfway up the steep and unstable Barnet Hill, and based on the Barnet Society’s knowledge of the geology of the area, we do not feel adequate engineering infrastructure has been accounted for.

The housing is also squeezed between the noisy, polluted railway line and the equally polluted Great North Road, meaning that the scheme would offer an unhealthy built environment with unacceptable access for residents and station users alike. 

The prospect of new shops and cafés by the station is unfortunately belied by the decades of economic precarity of similar businesses in the Lower High Street. The investment would be better spent reviving existing premises.

We should also point out that if the current planning application for a new Barnet FC stadium is approved, there could be an unacceptable increase in construction traffic on roads in and around the town centre.

Unless the above matters can be addressed, at present the Barnet Society is minded to oppose the proposals.