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.

Above: proposed view from King George’s Fields

How you can comment

Have your say one of these ways:

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.