Deadline looms to comment on planning application for ‘protected’ site in Arkley

24 Oct 2026
Written by Robin Bishop
The Orchard, Rowley Lodge Field, Arkley: views before, of unspoilt nature, and after, of illegally felled trees

The land in Arkley’s Green Belt illustrated above is a Site of Borough Importance for Nature Conservation and a Tree Preservation Zone, and until unlawfully cleared of trees last February was a pretty place to walk. A planning application has since been submitted for 12 travellers caravan pitches on it. You have until Thursday 29 October to submit your comments on the application.

In April, Nick Jones wrote here about the horrendous destruction. Barnet planners referred it to the Forestry Commission, which has confirmed that the felling was a breach of the Forestry Act 1967. We’ve been informed, however, that the Forestry Commission has decided not to take legal action. Barnet Council is now consulting its own legal advisors.

Deadline looms to comment on planning application for ‘protected’ site in Arkley

These events conform to a pattern of erosion of the Green Belt in and around Arkley that has caused the Barnet Society increasing concern. I first reported on the threats in a web post in 2020, and Nick Jones wrote about land sales in Arkley in a web post in 2023.

Barnet Council’s 2025 Local Plan contains good policies to protect its Green Belt and an imaginative commitment to designate an arc of greenery from Mill Hill & Scratchwood to Arkley & Hadley as a Regional Park – not unlike the Lee Valley Regional Park – which in theory should provide extra protection.

But successive governments have relaxed planning restrictions, and (as described in my August web post on the draft London Plan) the Mayor of London wants Barnet to build 7,000 new homes in its Green Belt.

The Barnet Society isn’t opposed in principle to new homes in the Green Belt – whether for travellers or static residents – but accepts them only as a last resort, only when the buildings and their surroundings are in sustainable locations, and only when designed to the highest environmental standards.

The present application is none of those things. If approved, it would reward illegal behaviour and set a deeply worrying precedent for the remaining greenery between Arkley and Borehamwood.

Deadline looms to comment on planning application for ‘protected’ site in Arkley

You can see the application documents and plans here. Search for 26/3182/FUL. They aren’t a long read!

The Barnet Society strongly objects to the application. We’ve drafted the following comments:

  1. It is contrary to National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) policies S5 (development outside settlements), GB6 (development in the Green Belt) & HO7 (need for homes).

2. The land strongly contributes to these Green Belt purposes in NPPF policy GB2:

(a) Checking unrestricted sprawl of large built‑up areas;

(b) Preventing neighbouring towns from merging;

(d) Preserving the setting and special character of historic towns.

3. The Design & Access Statement’s assertion that the site should be classified as Grey Belt is absurd. It is part of Rowley Lodge Field, 4.4 hectares of trees and meadow, a Grade II Site of Borough Importance for Nature Conservation and a Tree Preservation Zone. Its unlawful clearance in February is an extreme case of degrading Green Belt land before an application claiming Grey Belt status. Such cynical practice is unacceptable as a route to planning approval.

4. The applicant’s claim that the Mayor of London’s Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Needs Assessment 2025 proves a need for 16 travellers pitches in Barnet is correct, but fails to address the basic inappropriateness of this particular site. The precedent of the Planning Inspectorate’s over-ruling of Barnet’s refusal of an application for pitches in Mays Lane (23/3816/FUL) is irrelevant because that decision was conditional on sole use by named travellers and their dependents.

5. The proposal contravenes Barnet Council policy HOU06 (Travellers et al), conditions A-E.

6. The proposal is fundamentally unsustainable. The site’s biodiversity would be reduced. No environmental improvements are proposed. Vehicle and pedestrian access is hazardous. Site utilities are nil. There are no local nurseries, schools, shops or medical services. Public transport connections are poor. Unavoidable vehicle usage would exacerbate existing congestion on local roads.

The unauthorised destruction of natural habitat is compounded by a perfunctory planning application that lacks the detail essential for such a sensitive location. This site is part of a vital – but already thin – tract of greenery separating Arkley from Borehamwood and South Mimms. Proposals for other housing developments on neighbouring plots include 300 new homes on Arkley Manor Farm. Further erosion of the Green Belt is unacceptable and must be refused.

Submit your own comments

Arkley residents have distributed the flyer below, helpfully telling you how to do so.

Deadline looms to comment on planning application for ‘protected’ site in Arkley
Deadline looms to comment on planning application for ‘protected’ site in Arkley

6 thoughts on “Deadline looms to comment on planning application for ‘protected’ site in Arkley”

  1. Common sense please. Green spaces are needed and enjoyed by all.

  2. Falling birthrate, not enough doctors and nurses, not enough school places, overcrowded roads, no places for social gatherings, no community clubs, pubs, youth centres, lack of direction and to top out off.
    Too many individuals making vast amounts of money with total disregard of the community they say they represent.

  3. I am also against this development. Green spaces are important for the community and something that people keep overlooking our mental health. These spaces are getting less and less and if they keep going like this, we’ll have nothing left. Bonnet is already overcrowded and inundated with traffic. It seems to me to be rather stupid to overcrowd an already overpopulated area. The schools are oversubscribed, the services for the population over subscribed, the hospitals already and for years not able to cope and there is no long term plan to deal with all this. More people will only make things worse.

  4. This is an important area for conserving a green belt corridor. The illegal felling of trees should be prosecuted, not rewarded leading to profiteering. We have global warming and Labour’s relaxing of planning laws regarding ‘grey belt’ land is allowing stealthy erosion of nature. Shameful.

  5. I am totally against this project. Our green belt is essential for us as it provides us oxigene in this polluted Great London . I walk daily in this area which remains full of wild life and where ir us possible to see the best y of nature without taking the car . It would be criminal to damage this part of our life !

  6. Think again, I strongly object to building on these green spaces, we need them for the wildlife the trees play an important role for us humans too.

Write Your Comment

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