“ There are three elephants in the room on this before we even get to whether it is a good idea in principle. To be clear we are talking about yet another development of hundreds of new homes and thousands of new residents in a town already starved of many of the facilities to support them.
Before “going off on one” I just have to say when launched the website used a photograph of Finchley Central over the caption “Consultation for High Barnet launches!”. That rather confirms the impression these proposals have been result of a visit to Google and Google Maps, satellite view, rather than the site itself.
I also note the website uses the exact shade of blue green for its branding as our local authority, Barnet Council. My understanding is this is purely a TFL and private business operation so I can’t see that can be justified.
1) Put simply placing high rise flats around the junction between Barnet Hill and the Meadway could surely not be contemplated by any architect or engineer who had been anywhere near the town. That part of the site is not an inaccessible and underused woodland, it is an unstable early 19th century manmade embankment on one side and an artificially steepened hillside on the other. The cost of the special engineering required to build homes safely on that part of the site would make them completely uneconomic to build and sell.
2) The suggestion of improved cycle and pedestrian access while completely ignoring desperately needed level access from the station to bus routes is similarly unimaginably naive. Now saying the latter is an idea that may be considered is simply not good enough. It should have been obvious to any town planner or architect on first stepping foot in Barnet. Pedestrian access south is good, albeit mainly to an excellent cinema, two pubs and a few local shops. Walking north to the town is another matter, up a very steep hill and nothing in the proposal can change that. The idea of improving cycle access hits the same steep hill. I say again, what High Barnet has needed for years is direct bus access to the station.
3) Apart from the fantasy engineering on the steep slopes dropping into the station the rest of the proposal swallows the vast proportion of the station’s parking, in fact all of it looking at the drawings. I note how often respondents on this page have objected to this. Bear in mind if you live in the town you would only drive to the station when absolutely necessary, yet it is still what many people feel they must write about. Looking around at the shear number of cars on the roads shows culling vehicle usage in cities has a long way to go. In a future of zero emission transport it is debatable how desirable too large a reduction even is. Meanwhile (ie from 2023 until 2050) getting rid of carparks at suburban tube stations is premature and of dubious benefit in the future. It will result in less use of public transport rather than more and will threaten the viability of these stations. For the town it will put yet more pressure on what parking is left. And there is no parking at all for this 40% affordable housing project itself, which of course means the occupants of the 60% of unaffordable houses will be parking vehicles somehow, somewhere else. Somewhere in a town near you.
My points 1) and 2) are surely indisputable, point 3) stands up to scrutiny.
I have really tried to see the positive side of this but firmly in my mind’s eye is a row of seven–storey brutalist modernist blocks of flats stretching to the horizon and emblazoned with the name “Barnet Barbican” (I will claim that as copyright). Ok, Barnet may have surrendered its leafy market town epithet some time ago but surely such a vista on the main route into the historic old town can not be acceptable.
Clearly London’s Mayor, with commendable good intentions, expects this to kill three birds with one stone not just in Barnet but throughout the capital’s suburbs. Cull car usage – tick, build affordable housing – tick, make money for TFL – tick. However only the third point withstands scrutiny. Sorry Mr Mayor, this is no fix for a housing crisis, transport in London or the environment. It doesn’t take a genius to work out building endless numbers of new homes in 21st century England to deal with a growing population is no more sustainable than telling people to emigrate to the Empire in the 19th.
OK, something will be built, but this opening salvo is indescribably insensitive to the location. A proper look at the area is needed and a quick return to the drawing board with a blank sheet of paper. ”