Tag: Barnet Council

Posted on by — 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 by — 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 by — 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 by — 3 Comments

Future road closures such as Wood Street, High Barnet, could cost contractors as much as £2,500 a day

A three-week closure of Wood Street, High Barnet – resulting in widespread rush hour traffic disruption and a lengthy diversion for three bus routes – is an illustration of why there is likely to be strong support for Barnet Council’s plan to force utility companies to speed up their work.

Road pricing would impose lane rental charges on excavating main roads across the borough punishing contractors with escalating costs.

Currently the scheme is out for consultation and if approved by both the council and the Secretary of State for Transport, the charges would take effect from April 1 next year.

Lane closures on Barnet’s busiest main roads would cost utility companies and contractors a daily charge of £2,500.

Wood Street’s closure in both directions between the Black Horse roundabout and Hillside Gardens – from August 5 to August 26 – is causing traffic jams, delays and unnecessary costs for road users.

Three major bus routes along Wood Street – 107, 263 and 307 – are being diverted along Stapylton Road, St Albans Road and the High Street.

Ambulances serving Barnet Hospital are also unable to use the most direct route.

Adding to the congestion is the pinch point beside the Black Horse public house where buses and large commercial vehicles have to pass in single file along a narrow section of Stapylton Road.

Thames Water has put up notices apologising for the inconvenience. Contractors are working at a depth of 3.5 metres to repair a collapsed sewer.

But as with a similar three-week closure of Barnet Road, Arkley, for sewer repairs – again in both directions and resulting in lengthy bus diversions – there appears to be little if any late night or weekend working by the contractors.

Nearby residents in Arkley complained vociferously about the time taken to complete the work.

A diversion of the 107 (New Barnet to Edgware) required buses to follow a route along the High Street, St Albans Road and the A1 and meant the withdrawal of buses along Wood Street and Barnet Road.

Barnet Council’s consultation on the introduction of a lane rental scheme for the borough’s main roads opened on 30 July; closes on 9 September; with feedback due by 25 September so that a decision can be taken by a government deadline of 30 September for schemes to take effect next April.

A note on the consultation –  https://www.engage.barnet.gov.uk/lane-rental-scheme-consultation  – says the introduction of lane rental charges on the busiest roads at the busiest times should limit the amount of disruption across the borough’s road network.

Transport for London have been operating a lane rental scheme on some highways since 2012 and the introduction of the scheme in Barnet would affect just under 14 per cent of the borough’s roads.

Road closures such as Wood Street, High Barnet, could cost Thames Water and contractors £2,500 a day under new Barnet Council road lane rental plan.

Wood Street is one of the main roads that would attract the highest charges of up to £2,500 a day for lane rentals between 7am and 7pm on weekdays and between 7am and 10am and then 3pm to 7pm at weekends.      

Posted on by — 1 Comment

Work well underway on Victoria Quarter flats at New Barnet…but uncertainty over much-used footpath and tunnel

A long-established footpath under the main railway line at New Barnet faces an uncertain future after being deemed unsafe during redevelopment of the former gas works site off Victoria Road.

Victoria Quarter – a massive new complex of 420 flats in eleven blocks of up to eight storeys in height – is rapidly taking shape after finally securing planning approval last year.

Save New Barnet mounted a sustained campaign to try to ensure improvements and safeguards during lengthy appeals and legal challenges over a succession of applications to develop the vacant site which lies between the main line and Victoria Park recreation ground and leisure centre.

Developers Citystyle Fairview promised that as part of the scheme it would install a well-lit new footpath to a tunnel which provides a right way connecting Victoria Park and its surrounding roads with streets on the other side of the main line around Cromer Road and Tudor Park.

But there is uncertainty now because Network Rail has detected structural faults in the railway embankment and tunnel which forced the closure of the footpath last year soon after construction work started.

East Barnet councillor Simon Radford (above) has taken up complaints made by residents and the Save New Barnet campaign about the continued closure of the existing overhead walkway leading to the tunnel, and the resulting loss of a much-used public right of way.

“Unfortunately, there is no indication yet as to what work is needed to stabilise the embankment and tunnel or how much it will cost,” said Councillor Radford.

“The footpath should have re-opened in July. We hope it might be sorted out by the end of the year, but who knows now.”

At his request there will be regular joint meetings between Network Rail, Fairview and Barnet Council and he has promised to keep the community informed.

“The trouble will probably be sorting out who should pay for any remedial work that is needed to the tunnel.

“Clearly the developers have a responsibility as they promised a new footpath, but it is complicated now Network Rail and Barnet Council are involved.”

The uncertainty has been criticised by John Dix of the Save New Barnet campaign who agreed with Councillor Radford that the re-opening of the footpath might take “significantly longer” than the target date of November.

“Apparently the embankment is already subject to cracking and instability at track level, and this has necessitated a redesign of the works.

“Sadly, this is something we specifically warned the council about before they granted permission to close the public right of way, but when do they ever listen to residents.”

The frontage to the Victoria Quarter redevelopment off Albert Road has been transformed by the completion of the new Park Quarter flats which front on to Victoria Road. Many are now fully occupied.

A start has already been made to marketing homes in the larger Victoria Quarter complex – as seen in the image above from the housing association Sovereign Network Group which is promoting the sale of some of the flats on a shared ownership basis.

SNG, which started promotion in June of the sale of a group of 22 one-, two- and three-bedroom flats in an area to be known as Quartoria, says that priority for the shared-ownership homes will be given to people who live or work in Barnet.

Its website says that based on a 25 per cent shared ownership one-bedroom apartments will be available from £91,250; two-bedroom from £113,750; and three-bedroom from £142,500.

There will be one parking space per apartment, either off-street or under croft parking.

There has been a succession of applications to redevelop the cleared site of the former New Barnet gas works in a long-running saga dating back over 16 years.

Residents and amenity group mounted fierce opposition fearing developers would cram in too many high-rise blocks.

It started when ASDA dropped their 2008 plan to build a new supermarket on the 7.5-acre site.

In 2017 approval was given for 317 flats but this was increased to 652 in a subsequent application proposing ten-storey blocks.

After local criticism this was reduced to 554 and finally Citystyle Fairview gained permission last year for 420 flats in blocks ranging from four to eight storeys with an undertaking to ensure the “removal of the existing elevated footbridge (leading to the tunnel) and creation of new pedestrian routes”.

A separate development is proposed by Berkeley Homes for the northern section of the gasworks site.

Victoria Quarter complex of 420 flats in New Barnet is well underway but residents fear for future of pedestrian tunnel under main railway line.

Late last year, it unveiled a plan to build 200 homes – a scheme which would result in the demolition of the 90-year-old gasometer, a well-known local landmark.

National Grid Property Holdings said the 38-metre-high frame of what was originally known as a column guided gasholder had “no particular historic or architectural merit” and “little, if any heritage value”.

Posted on by — 2 Comments

Time is running out for “Morty” the graffiti vandal whose tags have disfigured shops and buildings around Barnet

Graffiti vandal “Morty” who has sprayed a tag on countless doors, walls and hoardings might be about to be unmasked after a two-month spree of damage to premises in and around Barnet.

Oak Hill Park cafe proprietor Eva Danielewicz (above) hopes the culprit will be required to clean off graffiti which she has been unable to remove from the walls and shutters of her cafe.

Following the launch of an appeal to try to find who is responsible for the tags, officers at Barnet Council believe they might have identified a social media account belonging to “Morty” or perhaps to “Morty’s” father.

Council staff are said to have been hard pressed to keep up with the task of cleaning off “Morty” tags from premises around High Barnet, New Barnet and East Barnet, and especially on bus shelters, telephone cabinets and on walls and passageways.

East Barnet Councillor Simon Radford – seen above with recently-applied graffiti on the bridge over Pymmes Brook in Victoria Park – has reported numerous examples of “Morty” tags over the last two months.

“This clean-up has already cost Barnet Council thousands of pounds in staff time, man hours and cleaning materials.

“In the last few months ‘Morty’ has become a real nuisance. We are determined to try to put a stop to it and the first step is to identify who is responsible.”

A passageway between New Barnet Station and Station Road has been another regular target.

After the council launched an appeal on social media to try to identify the culprit there has been some success. Officials believe they have found “Morty’s” social media account or perhaps that of the father.

“Let’s hope that at last something can be done about it,” said Councillor Radford.   

Eva Danielewicz feels especially aggrieved over the way her cafe has been disfigured with “Morty” tags.

Graffiti vandal "Morty" whose tag has been plastered on premises around Barnet might be be about to unmasked and held to account

She has welcomed Councillor Radford’s support and thanked him for all he had done in reporting the problems being caused by the graffiti.

“One morning last month we found a ‘Morty’ tag had been sprayed in a couple of places at the front of the cafe and on the back door as well.

“I’ve got nowhere myself trying to clean it off. The only alternative is to repaint the surfaces so I do hope whoever has done it can be made to come along and get rid of it.”

Ms Danielewicz has been running cafe and Malibu soft play area at Oak Hill Park – at the junction of Church Hill Road and Parkside Gardens — for the last 30 years and has been distressed by the appearance of the graffiti.

Councillor Radford said “Morty” tags were especially annoying as they were popping up everywhere.

“The council has responded well in dealing with this graffiti but at a time when financial resources are so stretched we shouldn’t be spending money needlessly on such mindless vandalism,” said Councillor Radford who is the borough’s cabinet member for finance.

Posted on by — 8 Comments

Plans for the introduction of yet another CPZ for High Barnet has provoked furious response among Mays Lane residents

A mass protest is being organised by residents of Mays Lane and surrounding roads in opposition to the introduction of a new and additional controlled parking zone which is being proposed by Barnet Council.

A campaign to force the council to abandon the idea was launched at a public meeting attended by around 170 residents.

Organisers and over 50 supporters of the protest met again at the junction of Mays Lane and Mayhill Road – see above – to discuss how best to rally further support and keep up the pressure.

The proposed Underhill South CPZ would take in 29 roads – including several cul-de-sacs – which are on either side of Mays Lane, extending from the junction with Manor Road all the way westwards to the junction with Shelford Road.

Residents say a CPZ over such a wide area – extending south from Barnet town centre to the Dollis Valley riverside walk – is completely unnecessary and would become extremely expensive for residents.

Barnet Council’s highways department says it began consultations over a new CPZ for Underhill South because of complaints from residents and businesses about excessive parking in the roads south of Barnet Hospital.

A survey had shown that there were “extremely high levels of parking stress” in most of the roads surrounding Mays Lane caused by the extra demand for spaces caused by hospital staff, patients and visitors.

The new CPZ would operate at the same time – Monday to Saturday, between 8am and 6.30pm – as the existing and much larger Barnet Hospital CPZ which takes in roads in the hospital’s immediate vicinity.

Feedback from the initial consultation is due to be considered in September.

The two leading organisers of the protest – Gina Theodorou, chair of the Quinta Village Green Residents Association and Jon Woolfson, founder of the Underhill Residents Group – said opposition to a new CPZ was overwhelming.

“There might be some residents who might have an issue with hospital parking but the vast majority of people who live either side of Mays Lane do not experience any difficulty in parking and have not complained to the council.

“We are very concerned about the accuracy of the council’s claim that there are ‘extremely high levels of parking stress in most roads within the proposed area’ and we care calling on the council’s highway department to publish details of their survey.”

After conducting his own street-by-street by inquiries, Mr Woolfson was convinced the council’s survey findings were flawed and that there was no evidence to support their assertions about extreme parking stress. Of equal concern, he said, was the evidence he had found suggesting many residents had not received any official notification from the council.

Dan Tomlinson, MP for Chipping Barnet, has told the campaign that he will be submitting an objection given the clear strength of feeling among the residents.

He intends to support Underhill ward councillor Zahra Beg who is hoping to arrange a meeting to see if the Royal Free Hospital Trust will examine possibilities for a multi-storey car park at Barnet Hospital.

“If Barnet Hospital could be persuaded to take some responsibility and invest in a pop up multi storey it would do so much to relieve parking pressures around the hospital,” said Ms Theodorou.    

Opponents of the scheme include Whitings Hill Primary School and Underhill Primary School which both say teaching and support staff often commute from outside the area and many rely on nearby on-street parking.

Underhill had a particularly wide catchment area and public transport was inadequate. Families would be inconvenienced and both schools feared that a CPZ would have an adverse impact on support for after-school and community events.

Barnet Smiles Dental Care feared that staff and patients at their dental practice in Cedar Lawn Avenue would face unnecessary expense if the CPZ went ahead.

“We have never experienced any parking difficulties that would justify a CPZ. There is sufficient turnover and availability of parking spaces through the day for residents, visitors and local businesses.”

The prospect of the expense of parking permits and vouchers for visitors was a source of considerable anguish.

Richard Hockings ( above,far right) proprietor of a small business, said that to park his van outside his house would cost him £243 a year – a considerable financial burden. Charges for commercial vehicles depended on emissions – hence the height of the charge for van with a two-litre diesel engine.

Another angry resident, Gloria Jones (above), said the introduction of a CPZ on her road would just add to the additional expense she was already having to face.

“This will be the fourth CPZ around here and it’s already a nightmare.

“I have to pay when I park outside my parents in the hospital CPZ; then outside my sister’s house in the town CPZ; and at the doctor’s surgery in another zone – and now this will be the fourth.

“Barnet Council are just out for the money. Why can’t you park in all the CPZ areas once you have signed up for a permit.”

Jenny Pymont, who lives in a warden assisted property in Mayhill Road, said that she and the other residents in the flats and bungalows believed the CPZ would be very unfair on their visitors and carers.

“We rely on people coming to see us – and now they are going to be clobbered with a parking charge.”

Residents living around Mays Lane organise mass protest at plans for a new controlled parking zone in local roads

Gina Cornock thought the wide sweep of the CPZ was quite unnecessary. “We live in a cul-de-sac and there is no problem with parking. This is just a money- making exercise for the council.”

Posted on by — Leave a comment

Family needs for travellers’ caravan site outweighs Green Belt protection for Mays Lane countryside says planning inspector

Spirited opposition by a residents’ association has failed to prevent the go ahead for the development of a site for pitches for two travellers’ caravans and other buildings on a field in Green Belt land off Mays Lane, Barnet.

An application for permission was rejected by Barnet Council but this has now been overruled by a planning inspector who said the needs of two gypsy families with seven young children “tipped the balance” in their favour.

Quinta Village Green Residents Association, which had argued that a travellers’ site would harm the openness of the Green Belt and the character of Mays Lane, expressed their “deep disappointment”.

After a lengthy inquiry, the inspector Graham Chamberlain acknowledged there would be “some modest harm to the character and appearance of the area” but there were “very special circumstances” which outweighed the harm to the Green Belt.

The application to station caravans for residential use with hardstanding and dayrooms was made by Patrick Casey who appealed against the council’s refusal to grant planning permission on the grounds that it breached the Green Belt.

Mr Chamberlain said that he understood Mr Casey, who was currently living at the Barley Mow site near Hatfield, and his brother J Casey, were both “unlawfully doubling up as a temporary measure” and needed a secure and settled site.

“The Casey brothers are gypsies, and they want to follow a traditional lifestyle that involves living in culturally appropriate accommodation, this being a caravan on a pitch.”

There were seven young children in the case and their best interests would be served by “establishing a secure permanent home at the appeal site given the lack of suitable alternatives, including where they currently live unlawfully”.

Mr Chamberlain did conclude that a travellers’ site was inappropriate development; would harm the Green Belt; and that the unmet need for caravan pitches in the London Borough of Barnet was not extensive.

However, the balance in favour of the scheme changed significantly when personal circumstances were factored in, especially the best interests of the children.

“Indeed, personal circumstances tip the balance in favour of the scheme when all other considerations are contemplated cumulatively…It follows that the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development have been demonstrated.”

In expressing their frustration at Mr Chamberlain’s go-ahead for the site, the residents’ association said that during the inquiry “no robust evidence of these personal or accommodation circumstances was provided by the appellant, despite repeated requests, and yet these claims were given decisive weight by the inspector.

“The decision overrides local and national planning safeguards, potentially setting a concerning precedent for Green Belt protection.”

Much of the inquiry revolved around whether establishing a site for travellers’ caravans on a two-acre paddock which had been used for grazing horses would extend urban sprawl along Mays Lane and encroach the countryside.

Planning inspector agrees to site for pitches for two travellers' caravans in Green Belt land off Mays Lane, Barnet, despites residents' opposition.

The field is next door to the Mays Lane car park of the Centre for Islamic Enlightening (formerly a Brethren Gospel Hall).

In his report allowing Mr Casey’s appeal, Mr Chamberlain agreed that the paddock had an open rural character free from development, and it was open land that one would expect to “strongly contribute to restricting the urban sprawl of Barnet”.

Accordingly, he recognised that a caravan site next to the Islamic Centre and opposite the Partridge Close estate, would “compound an incongruous finger of development in the countryside” – a factor which was outweighed by the “very special circumstances” he subsequently outlined.

Concerns about the impact on great crested newts and bats were among the issues raised by the residents’ association, but these were not upheld by Mr Chamberlain.

He said a survey showed there were no great crested newts present on the site, and he did not believe either that travellers’ caravans would have an adverse impact on the bat population.

When Mr Casey made his application in 2023, after purchasing the field at auction, the residents’ association raised objections with Barnet Council and welcomed the refusal to grant permission.

The association, which is named after Quinta Village Green and represents 150 families living nearby, succeeded in raising only half of the £15,000 needed for legal representation at the inquiry after already securing a barrister.

“Without access to the council’s expert evidence, the association was left to try to continue contesting the issues alone and under-resourced.

“Adding further controversy, the inspector rejected Barnet Council’s request to limit the planning permission to a five-year temporary term, instead granting permanent consent.

“Residents fear this undermines policy safeguards and opens the door to piecemeal development across London’s Green Belt.

“This is a disappointing outcome for our community, and a worrying moment for Green Belt protections in Barnet.

“Residents engaged in good faith, supported their council, and upheld planning policy – but this decision shows how fragile these protections can be when decision-makers prioritise unevidenced claims over adopted policy.”   

Posted on by — 3 Comments

Bees stay in Hive for now: Council rejects Barnet FC plans for new Underhill stadium

A 100+ crowd packed planning committee rooms at Barnet Town Hall last night for the big match – Barnet Football Club v defenders of Barnet Playing Fields, the proposed site of a new 7,000-seat stadium. After more than two hours of impassioned debate, the result was announced: 6-0 against the Bees.

Barnet FC left its traditional home turf at Underhill for The Hive in Harrow in 2013, selling its site for the Ark Pioneer academy. Ever since, fans have pined for its return to the Borough, and the Club’s recent promotion to English Football League 2 has exacerbated pressures on The Hive. Design began on a new stadium, culminating last December in the outline planning application that was now to be determined by Barnet’s Strategic Planning Committee (visualisation by And Architects below).

There have been vigorous campaigns both for and against the proposal. Barnet FC’s Bring Barnet Back (BBB) claimed 9,500+ supporters. Save Barnet Playing Fields (SBPF – see photograph above) asserted that 90% of local residents opposed the development, and CPRE London said that almost 19,000 had signed a petition against it. The Council received 1,274 online comments plus 72 letters supporting the proposal (35%), as against 1,162 online and about 1,308 paper objections to it (64%). The numbers can be disputed, but division was clearly deep.

The Planning Officer’s report, which recommended refusal, ran to 120 pages – unusually thorough for a project of this size. For comparison, the report last year on the Whalebones application was a mere 103 pages. It reflected local sensitivity, especially around development in the Green Belt. As Committee Chairman Councillor Nigel Young noted, approval could set a precedent for building on other Barnet green spaces.

The significance of the matter was demonstrated by no fewer than five local politicians addressing the meeting in person (in addition to the nine Councillors on the Committee itself). Cllrs Zahra Beg (Underhill), Paul Edwards (High Barnet), David Longstaff (Barnet Vale) and London Assembly Member Anne Clarke all wished to see Barnet FC return to the Borough, but opposed a stadium on Barnet Playing Fields. Only Cllr Tim Roberts supported it.

They were followed by Robert Verrall representing opponents of the scheme, and by Ian Botterill and Sean McGrath representing BBB and the Club’s design team respectively.

All spoke with passion, occasionally interrupted by bursts of audience applause and heckling despite the Chairman’s repeated requests for quiet.

Committee members then discussed the proposal between themselves. Most reiterated support for Barnet FC’s return, just not to this particular location. Several called for consideration of alternative sites, but as the Chairman pointed out, the Committee could only decide on the application in front of them.

In the end, the outcome was decisive. Three members abstained but the others were unanimous in denying planning permission.Their key reasons for refusal were that

‘the proposed development would result in substantial and irreversible harm to the openness and function of the Green Belt, and…the applicant has failed to demonstrate the very special circumstances necessary to justify such harm. The proposal would also result in the loss of valued public open space…’

Other reasons for refusal were insufficient information to safeguard protected species; insufficient information on archaeology; inadequate assessment of on-street parking impacts; unacceptable site access and junction design; and lack of a Section 106 Agreement (detailing the applicant’s financial contribution towards community infrastructure costs).

Barnet Society position

Consultation with our members last February indicated that they were roughly evenly split over the scheme.

Our Committee agreed that we wholeheartedly support the principle of Barnet FC returning closer to its historic roots. And a building and landscape design of exceptional quality could enhance Barnet Playing Fields, which make only a limited contribution to local biodiversity and are little used for sport. But we had severe reservations about key aspects of the Club’s case with regard to the Green Belt and the environment; transport and parking; community uses and benefits; and economic value.

We therefore took a neutral stance but submitted detailed comments that you can read on our website.

What will happen next?

Barnet FC has the right to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate against the Council’s refusal, but its chances of overturning the decision are not great – and will involve yet more expense.

A better way forward would be to build on the constructive discussions that its team held with the Barnet Society and Barnet Residents Association, and to engage more closely with the Council and other stakeholders about alternative sites.

Although disappointed, Bees fans remain defiant. As BBB organiser Keith Doe (seen below with Ian Botterill) said after the meeting, ‘One way or another, we’ll bring Barnet back!’

Posted on by — 6 Comments

Setback for Barnet Football Club as planning officials recommend refusal of plan for a new football stadium at Underhill

Barnet Council’s planning department has come down firmly against Barnet Football Club’s application to build a new 7,000-seat stadium on Barnet Playing Fields at Underhill.

A decision on whether or not the council should give its support is in the hands of its strategic planning committee whose members meet at Hendon Town Hall at 7pm on Monday 14 July.

So far there has been little advance indication of how the committee might respond but the planning department could not be clearer in recommending refusal.

It says the plan to build a new stadium on a “valued local park” would result in “substantial and irreversible harm to the openness and function of the green belt”.

BringBackBarnet, the group which has been campaigning in support of the club returning to Underhill from its existing stadium at The Hive, Harrow, says it is disappointed by the recommendation against the application.

Whatever the outcome of Monday’s meeting, the campaign says it will not give up.

If the plan is rejected, the supporters’ group is convinced that Barnet FC will appeal against the decision and ask for a planning inquiry.

They believe government policy is moving in favour of releasing some green belt land for development and that Barnet Council should take advantage of the offer by the Barnet FC chairman Tony Kleanthous to invest £14 million in constructing a new stadium.

Disappointment for Barnet Football Club as council planners recommend refusal of bid for new stadium at Underhill on Barnet Playing Fields

Since Barnet’s success in gaining promotion next season to League Two of the English Football League, BringBackBarnet have made much of the boost which they believe the club’s return could deliver for Barnet town centre and the local economy.

However, that argument is dismissed by the planners who say any possible “socio-economic” benefits from Barnet’s return to its historic home at Underhill – which it left in 2013 – would not outweigh the significant harm that would result from the “permanent loss of a significant portion of this protected open space”.

The club had failed to demonstrate “very special circumstances” and had failed to address the impact of displaced spectator car parking on the surrounding highway network.

Barnet FC’s full application is for a stadium, with ancillary uses including food and beverage outlets, office and community space, a club shop, a diagnostic centre, an on-site car park for 165 vehicles and parking space for five coaches.

The proposed site is within the Metropolitan Green Belt and the loss of playing field land would be in conflict with national, regional and local planning policy.

An application of such strategic importance to London — and its location within the green belt – would necessitate it being referred to the Mayor of London.  

Currently under the Barnet Local Plan, Barnet Playing Fields and the adjoining King George V Playing Fields immediately to the south of Dollis Brook, are designated as a sports hub site.

There was an earlier proposal by Barnet Council for the construction of new central facilities for the playing fields – including changing rooms and a cafe – but no detailed plan has been submitted and one of the arguments of BringBackBarnet is that a new football stadium could provide amenities for the community which Barnet Council simply cannot afford.

One issue not addressed in the club’s application is the question of whether ownership of a new stadium site would be transferred to club chairman Tony Kleanthous.

The playing fields are currently the subject of a restrictive covenant between the National Playing Fields Association and the Mayor and Councillors of Barnet which requires them to be preserved as a charitable trust in perpetuity as a memorial to King George V and the King George’s Field Foundation.

Posted on by — 2 Comments

More stolen vehicles being recovered but Barnet residents urge MP to press for tougher police action against organised car theft gangs

Police failures which have led to the Borough of Barnet becoming a London hot spot for gangs stealing cars provoked a heated debate at a summit on car theft held by the Chipping Barnet MP Dan Tomlinson.

A line-up of speakers which included a government minister, police inspector, Barnet councillor and specialists in tackling crime was accused of offering little more than platitudes and excuses.

A show of hands had indicated that a high proportion of the audience had been the victims of car theft.

They queued up to complain about what they judged was a lack of interest and an inadequate response by the authorities.

Mr Tomlinson (above, far right) acknowledged the anger of aggrieved constituents despite assurances from the government, police, local councils and car manufacturers they were increasing cooperation to co-ordinating their response.

As a result, more stolen cars were now being recovered.

“But I understand the strength of feelings about the police not tackling these organised crime gangs,” said Mr Tomlinson, who faced a line of audience members demanding answers.

When several of those who spoke out said that all they had been offered at the summit were the same lame excuses, their rebuke was greeted with jeers and applause in support.

Mr Tomlinson faced his critics head on.

“I know how aggrieved you are, and I hear your complaint that not enough is being done to go after these gangs. I take that flack. We must push the government, and the agencies involved to do much more.

“There is currently no nationally scaled task force to match the organised crime groups and that is what we need to go after the car thieves.”

He said his aim for the constituency was to achieve a 25 per cent reduction in car theft by 2028 – and he would be checking the statistics every six months.

Mr Tomlinson’s car theft summit, held at the Jewish Community Secondary School in New Barnet (7.7.2025), opened with his presentation of a stark statistic: 574 cars were stolen in the eight wards of the Chipping Barnet constituency during 2023, that meant ten or so were being stolen every week.

This was one of the highest rates for car theft in London.

He had been made aware of the extent of this organised crime when canvassing to become MP as in street after street people told him about their cars being stolen.

Barnet, as an outer London suburb, was particularly susceptible to car thefts because of its proximity to the M25 and other main roads which made it easier move stolen vehicles.

Many were taken to what were known as chop shops where they were broken down into sections and parts and then exported in containers for re-assembly in Africa, the Middle East or countries like Russia.

Inspector Kem Ofo, (above with Councillor Sara Conway) — who is responsible for car theft prevention and investigation in the eastern half of the borough — said the police believed there were currently no chop shops within Barnet although one in Edgware was discovered and closed last year.

He reminded the audience that in 50 per cent of thefts the vehicle had been left unlocked, and he urged the installation of steering wheel immobilisers and disc locks

Recently there had been funding for a week of targeted action on car thefts which had resulted in 40 arrests and the recovery of 20 stolen vehicles – an operation which Mr Tomlinson hoped could be repeated if funding could be found.

After an explanation from Inspector Ofo as to how the police were making better use of tracker devices, Mr Tomlinson said it was clear more needed to be done to speed up the sharing of information about stolen vehicles within the force.

Often stolen vehicles were parked nearby for a day or so while the thieves waited to see if they were being tracked and were then driven away with cloned number plates.

When challenged as to why the police often failed to follow up householders’ door cam footage of cars being stolen, the head of the National Vehicle Crime Intelligence Service, Sharon Naughton, said the tough reality was that there was not the manpower to go through all the CCTV and door cam footage being offered by members of the public.

“This is all about the level of policing which the country can afford. Threats to life, risk, harm and vulnerability especially to women and children – these threats all come above vehicle crime.”

Councillor Sara Conway, who is Barnet council member for community safety and chair of the safer communities partnership, said that in the last two years since Labour took control the council had spent £3million improving the borough’s CCTV infrastructure to strengthen support for the police in tackling vehicle-related criminal activity.

In 2023, Barnet’s CCTV cameras were not working for 70 per cent of the time. Only 27 out of 127 cameras were operational.  Now there were over 700 operational CCTV cameras across the borough and extensive coverage around transport hubs.

MP Dan Tomlinson calls for more police action against gangs stealing vehicles because Chipping Barnet constituency has become a London hot spot for car theft.

The opening speaker at the summit was Dame Diana Johnson, minister for crime and policing, who said the government hoped new legislation would be in place by the end of the year.

Electronic devices used to unlock cars – which were used in 40 per cent of thefts – would be banned and become illegal. The police would be able to take action against people supplying or using such equipment.

There would also be a quicker recovery power to allow police to enter and search premises without a warrant if they believed vehicles or parts were being hidden.

The government had established a national vehicle crime reduction partnership to tackle what she described as these “ruthless, sophisticated, and professional organised crime groups” and funding had been provided to increase the interception of stolen vehicles at the ports.

PC Adam Gibson, who is assigned to the National Vehicle Crime Intelligence Service – which is funded by finance and leasing companies – described his work at ports such as Felixstowe and Harwich intercepting containers packed with stolen vehicles heading overseas.

Four or five suspect containers were stopped every week. There could be as many as five cars packed in one container. Sometimes there might be as many as 18, all broken up into parts. One container had contained three cars stolen from the same street.

Last year they had recovered 427 whole cars and 105 chopped up cars, together worth £22 million.

To help protect constituents with valuable cars, Mr Tomlinson had arranged for a 25 per cent discount on the cost of high radio frequency trackers supplied by the Tracker technology network whose managing director Mark Rose described the success of the latest technology.

Unlike most existing trackers which could be jammed – and which had an average car recovery rate of 30 per cent – the high radio frequency technology was producing a 95 per cent rate of recovery.

In the first six months of the year, Tracker had recovered 835 vehicles worth £25 million.  Police cars were connected to the new tracking system and 50 per cent of cars were being recovered in four hours and 80 per cent within 24 hours.

Greg Culshaw, general manager of customer support at Toyota, said that since 2021 their cars had been fitted with new software which could be updated remotely, and which was reducing car theft.

Toyota had installed Tracker devices free of charge in 50,000 cars and was working in partnership with Tracker and the police.

The 25 per cent discount for Chipping Barnet constituents for the installation of Tracker technology is available at www.tracker.co.uk using code TRACKER25.

Posted on by — 8 Comments

With a decision likely within weeks, BringBarnetBack step up their campaign for Barnet Football Club to return to Underhill

In advance of a key meeting which campaigners understand will be held in mid-July, BringBarnetBack have launched a last-minute appeal to Barnet Council to give the go-ahead for a new football stadium at Underhill.

From their own extensive soundings, they believe that there is a 50/50 chance of the council’s strategic planning committee granting planning approval for a 7,000-seat stadium at Barnet Playing Fields.

If the application is rejected, they are confident that the club will launch an appeal and they think it could become a test case in the push by the government to free up some Green Belt land for redevelopment.

However, BringBarnetBack warn that if the playing fields are redesignated as Grey Belt and freed for development, there is a danger the open space might be lost to make way for new housing.

At issue is the argument between many local residents who want to preserve the playing fields as a vital open space and Barnet FC supporters who are fully behind the offer of the club chairman Tony Kleanthous to move the club from The Hive at Harrow to a new £14 million stadium at Underhill.

BringBarnetBack have issued a 14-page dossier examining the arguments for and against the application which ends with a plea to the council to vote for a project that would be a sustainable development; enhance the surrounding Green Belt land; and bring back a football club that has “never stopped believing in coming home”.

(Bring Barnet Back – The Case http://eepurl.com/jhcTaU )

The proposed stadium would take up 22 per cent of the southern section of the playing fields – see above – which BringBarnetBack argue is in effect a “de-facto abandoned field with a monoculture of weeds and grass”.

Campaigners have visited the site at “hundreds of different times and in all weather conditions and claim there were “no people” on the proposed site, beyond the odd dog and its owner.

They believe the case for it becoming the new home of Barnet FC is strengthened by the fact that under a previous plan Barnet Council had proposed redeveloping the playing fields with a new 10,000 square foot destination sports hub that would have included two multi-purpose activity spaces, a cafe, six changing rooms and 55 new car parking spaces.

Because of severe funding restraints the council has not proceeded with its own plan and the reality is that all these facilities – and more – could be included in the new Barnet FC stadium “at no cost to the council”.

 Included in the new stadium would be medical facilities, which could be used by NHS patients; new public toilets which could encourage more use of the existing children’s playground and basketball courts; and community space for local food hubs and other charitable organisations.

One issue not addressed in the BringBarnetBack dossier is the wider use of the playing fields for large public events.

Last minute appeal by BringBarnetBack campaign to persuade Barnet Council to give go ahead for a new football stadium at Barnet Playing Fields

In May the playing fields hosted a five-day visit by Zippos Circus and other events are planned for later in the summer.

Organisers who have previously presented music and community festivals at other nearby sites such as Trent Park and Oak Hill Park, are switching to the playing fields at Underhill because of what they say is excellent access to public transport.

Other events being advertised at the playing fields are the Eagle Festival of Music over the weekend of June 21-22; the Ghana Party in the Park festival and the Mauritius open air festival which will be staged separately on the Saturday and Sunday of July 12 and July 13.

BringBarnetBack underline the urgency of the application: currently Barnet FC is loss-making and kept afloat at Harrow by Mr Kleanthous who is “willing to subsidise the club at a personal loss”.

Since moving to The Hive from Underhill in 2013 the club has lost between 25 per cent and 30 per cent of its core support and despite its promotion to the League Two of the English Football League, Barnet’s future is “unsustainable away from its home”.

Securing a return to Underhill – its home of 107 years — represents in planning terms “very special circumstances” to justify building a stadium on Green Belt land.

Posted on by — 3 Comments

New attraction at Barnet Playing Fields: a fusion of abstract art and a sport for a refurbished basketball court

Greater London’s first 3×3 basketball court – with a vibrant blue playing surface — has been opened at Barnet Playing Fields off Barnet Lane, Underhill.

3×3 basketball – for six players instead of the usual ten – is growing in popularity.

The refurbished, fully accessible court has been installed by Barnet Council with the help of England Basketball.

Designer Martin Dyan (above right), founder of Rise 3×3 Basketball, and North London artist Darren John, who specialises in large-scale public murals, attended the official opening of the court.

Sited next to the children’s playground, the vivid blue surface of the court immediately attracted the attention of passersby, and especially local youngsters anxious to start playing.

Keen to try it out were Yugi Koiz (left above) and Isaiah Saiona who both said it was a real fun.

Isaiah, who is now 15, has been playing basketball since he was 11. “The court that used to be here was rubbish, so it’s great to have this new court so close to where I live.”

Darren John, whose London mural team is based at Absolutely Studio, said blue had been chosen because it was the most vibrant colour, kept its appearance, and lasted longer for a playing surface.

A previous sport-related commission for Darren was to paint the skateboard area for the Paris Olympic Games. He believes the fusing of art with sport increases can help increase participation.

“Abstract art works well in a sporting or public setting because it has a wider appeal than a particular theme and tends to attract more visitors.”  

Martin Dyan said that 3×3 basketball had been growing in popularity because six could play on a court half the usual size.

After running a 3×3 charity event in 2017 he realised the potential for the sport because it was so accessible and so easy to play.

His consultancy, launched last year, advised Barnet Council on the best way to refurbish the existing court at the playing fields and bring it up to Olympic standards.

It has been resurfaced with fresh asphalt and a new hoop system installed with a backboard made from reinforced acrylic and a new flexible net.

The importance of the vividly painted surface was that it showed the court was being taken care off – and added a splash of colour to Barnet Playing Fields.

New addition at Barnet Playing fields is London's first 3x3 basketball court for a sport growing in popularity.

Underhill war councillor Zahra Beg praised what she said was a wonderful addition to the playing fields.  

After the launch of the new 3×3 court, Councillor Anne Clarke, Barnet Council’s cabinet member for culture, leisure, arts and sports, said the borough had a great tradition of supporting Olympic athletes and she was proud the council was helping to provide opportunities for the growth of a new Olympic sport.

3×3 basket ball is a variation of basket ball played three-a-side, but with one backboard and in a half-court but with specific lines and measurements — as seen in this photograph of the new court from Barnet Council.

“3×3 basket ball is a game that has been played on full courts for decades,” said Councillor Clarke.

“It began to take shape as its own sport from the early 2000s and has been an Olympic sport since 2020 and a Commonwealth Games sport since 2022, where England’s men’s team won a gold medal and the women’s team won silver.”

Posted on by — 1 Comment

Mays Lane residents are increasingly concerned about the continuing failure to restore the derelict Quinta Youth Club building

After being boarded up for the last 20 years a fresh attempt is about to be made to see whether it might be possible to get the abandoned Quinta Youth Club in Mays Lane, Barnet, refurbished or rebuilt and returned to community use.

After their success in obtaining and maintaining protected status for Quinta Village Green — which adjoins the derelict clubhouse — residents are increasingly concerned about continuing vandalism and anti-social behaviour.

Barnet Council and representatives of other local groups are to be sounded out by the Quinta Village Green Residents Association to see what could be done to restore a sadly neglected building.

Planning approval was given in 2021for use of the clubhouse to be changed from community use to become a store for the library service for schools in the Borough of Barnet.

Although said to be “derelict and in a poor condition” and vacant since 2006, the council proposed to refurbish the existing single-storey building, install new doors and windows, and use it for the storage, archiving and dispatching of library books as part of the borough’s Schools Library Resource Service.

But nothing further has happened to the building in the intervening four years, prompting residents’ concerns about continuing vandalism, resulting in their appeal for more thought to be given as to its future use. 

After the being re-established and named after Quinta Village Green, the residents’ association has been engaged in several campaigns against threats to the Green Belt and is seeking better consultation on road safety schemes in Mays Lane.

Residents to launch fresh attempt to see whether derelict former Quinta Youth Club in Mays Lanes can be restored for community use.

Gina Theodorou, the first chair of the newly formed association, promoted their work with a stall at the Arkley Village Fayre.

“Given all that we have been doing to strengthen the Quinta village community, we do think it is perhaps time to see whether something can be done about the abandoned youth club.

“As it has been boarded up for the last 20 years, we are now reaching out to Barnet Council, who own the building, and to other local partners to explore opportunities for restoring it and bringing it back into community use.”

Currently the association is crowdfunding for the cost of legal representation at a public inquiry into an application for a travellers’ caravan site on Green Belt land in Mays Lane.

So far, a crowdfunded appeal has raised half the cost, but the association still needs to raise almost £7,000.

After getting the village green registered as a public open space, the association liaises with the council to ensure maintenance of the green and to ensure that fly tipping is removed.    

Posted on by — 6 Comments

Plans to speed up introduction of 20mph speed limits prompting complaints about lack of enforcement of existing restrictions

Barnet Council is preparing a new procedure to allow residents to apply for a 20mph speed limit on side roads where they think driving is too fast and poses a danger to pedestrians and a risk of traffic accidents.

Stapylton Road – see above – and Salisbury Road are two residential streets close to High Barnet town centre which are thought to be at the top of the list for a reduction in the limit from 30mph to 20mph following speed surveys conducted last year.

A draft policy to allow residents to apply for lower speed limits has been agreed at a council cabinet meeting and is about to go out for public consultation.

While the council’s recognition of the need for more speed limits has been welcomed, residents in some roads where there is already a 20mph limit or traffic calming measures complain bitterly about a lack of enforcement.

Householders in Mays Lane, which is covered by a 20mph limit from the bottom of Barnet Hill and on through Underhill, complain regularly on social media about how many drivers take no notice.

They say that before the council agrees to any further 20mph zones it should install more repeater signs; more illuminated warnings of excessive speed; and investigate the possibility of installing speed cameras.   

Once the new procedure for 20mph zones is in place, residents will be able to make an application via the council’s website as is already the case when people report potholes, damaged pavements or abandoned vehicles.

East Barnet councillor Simon Radford – cabinet member for finance – said the new process would finally give Barnet residents the ability to ask — and outline the case — for a 20mph zone in the roads where they live.

He had been working with residents to reduce speeding in East Barnet, and he hoped their concerns could now be addressed with an assessment by council staff as to where there should be signs and road markings or perhaps additional traffic calming measures such as a road narrowing or speed hump.

Speed humps have recently been installed on Mays Lane (at the junction with Manor Road) where for many years previously there had been a metal barrier enforcing a width restriction.

Removal of the width restriction has angered some householders who say large vans and small lorries — which had previously been prevented from using that section of Mays Lane – are again travelling too fast and posing a danger to pedestrians, especially to customers using the Mays Lane parade of shops.

There are two sets of illuminated speed warning signs along Mays Lane but for much of its length there are few if any reminders of the 20mph limit – except for the freshly-painted signs on the road outside Underhill School and Children’s Centre.

Queens Road – leading to Queen Elizabeth’s Boys’ School and the Queen’s Road Estate – is another road where residents complain about the lack of enforcement of a 20mph speed limit.

There is only one reminder sign halfway along the road and a 20mph sign painted on the road which is so worn down it is barely visible.

Salisbury Road and Stapylton Road are likely to be prioritised by the council for a 20mph zone because of long-standing concern about speeding.

Stapylton Road by-passes Barnet High Street and is a heavily used link between the roundabout at the Black Horse public house and St Albans Road.

When parking spaces are full, the curve on the carriageway makes it difficult to see fast approaching vehicles on what is a popular cut through.

Plans for more 20mph speed limits in side roads but Barnet Council criticised for lack of enforcement of existing restrictions.

The lower section of Salisbury Road – from Stapylton Road to High Street – is largely one way but busier than the upper section because it is on the route for five bus services – 234 (Spires-Archway); 326 (Spires-Brent Cross); 383 (Finchley Memorial Hospital); 384 (Edgware-Cockfosters); and 399 (Hadley Wood).

Lowering the existing 30mph limit on Salisbury and Stapylton Roads would extend the 20mph limit which already applies in Alston Road (from the junction with Marriott Road to Salisbury Road) and the 20mph limits on Wentworth Road and Byng Road which serve Foulds and Christ Church primary schools and the Noah’s Ark Children’s Hospice.

Posted on by — 6 Comments

Barnet’s promotion to League Two of the Football League is being hailed as a boost to campaign to build new stadium at Underhill

After Barnet secured their return to the Football League with a decisive 4-0 win against Aldershot, supporters of the BringBarnetBack campaign hope it might strengthen the club’s chances of obtaining planning permission for a new stadium at Underhill.

There was a sell-out crowd for the last home match of the season (Saturday 26 April) at the club’s current stadium, The Hive, Harrow.

Their comfortable defeat of Aldershot ensured the Bees’s promotion to League Two of the English Football League.

Post-match celebrations for the team and spectators made the front page of The Non-League Paper (27.4.2025)

A largely unbeaten run had kept Barnet safely at the top of the Vanarama National League for months on end – a lead which extended for a time to nine points.

Barnet’s success – and a place back in League Two after relegation in 2018 – has boosted the efforts of supporters who have put up banners and posters around the town backing the club’s bid to build a new stadium at Underhill.

After seven years out of League football, securing promotion with a game in hand, has added further impetus to calls for Barnet residents and community groups to back the club chairman Tony Kleanthous who has promised to invest £14 million in a new stadium. 

Arrangements are already in hand by BringBarnetBack for a celebration in High Barnet to congratulate the club and manager Dean Brennan for turning around the club’s fortunes.

Barnet have only lost once this year and nine consecutive wins from February to March had already given the club a commanding lead.

Tickets sold out fast for the crucial match against Aldershot with 4,500 home supporters expected at the stadium together with away fans – for full match report see club’s website above https://barnetfc.com/

Two first half penalties by Mark Shelton and then two goals within four minutes in the second half by Callum Lee Stead sealed the match and promotion with a game to spare.

Victory over Aldershot put Barnet on 99 points (followed in second place by York on 93).

Barnet now have the chance in their final match of the season against AFC Fylde on 5.5.2025 to break the 100-point barrier.

After failing to gain promotion in the two previous seasons after being beaten in the play offs, Dean Brennan’s success in steering the team to automatic promotion does raise the club’s profile at a critical point in their future.

Since moving to The Hive in 2013, Barnet have failed to match previous attendances at Underhill.

The average gate in recent months has been around 1,800 and club officials believe a move back to Underhill could increase that to around 3,500 given the strength of local support.

Campaigners for Barnet FC to return to Underhill encouraged by club's promotion to League Two of the Football League

Discussions are continuing with Barnet Council’s planning department over the plan to return the club to “where it belongs” – a constant refrain of BringBarnetBack.

In February, Barnet FC completed another stage in its attempt to gain approval when its application to construct a 7,000-seat stadium on playing fields at off Barnet Lane was validated by Barnet council, a step which enabled the club’s consultants and architects to start discussions with planning officers.

There is no indication yet of how the talks are going and so far, no date has been set for when the application might be considered by the strategic planning committee.      

Posted on by

“Dame on the doorstep!” – Dame Theresa Villiers celebrates honours award out campaigning in Barnet Council by-election

Former Secretary of State Theresa Villiers, who was Conservative MP for Chipping Barnet until she lost her seat in last year’s general election, has been made a Dame Commander in Rishi Sunak’s resignation honours.

Four of her ex-colleagues were promoted to the House of Lords.

Ms Villiers is among a group of former Conservative ministers whose honours, including knighthoods, are in line either with their continuing status as MPs or are perhaps a reflection of the possibility that they might wish to seek re-election to the House of Commons.

The day after her Damehood was announced, she was celebrating her new status when out campaigning for the Conservative candidate in a by-election in Whetstone for a vacancy on Barnet Council.

“Dame on the doorstep” was the heading for a post on her Facebook page which contained numerous congratulations for “a well-deserved honour” and expressed the hope that she might one day return to Westminster as the Chipping Barnet MP.

Her website – www.theresavilliers.co.uk – gives details of the speeches she has made since losing her seat and outlines her wish, as a resident of Arkley, to continue taking an interest in community issues and events within the constituency.

A recent example of her engagement in local affairs was joining a LoveWhetstone litter pick in support of the Keep Britain Tidy Campaign.

In responding to the award – Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire – she made it clear it was an honour she believed she would never have received without the support and hard work on her constituency staff and volunteer helpers.

She was re-elected four times as the Chipping Barnet MP – in 2010, 2015, 2017 and 2019.

Her ministerial appointments included serving for four years as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland under David Cameron and then as Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs under Boris Johnson.

Former Chipping Barnet Conservative MP Theresa Villiers is made a Dame Commander by Rishi Sunak in resignation honours

Dan Tomlinson, who won the Chipping Barnet constituency for Labour in last July’s general election, added his congratulations.

The image above is by High Barnet caricaturist and cartoonist, Simon Ellinas (simonelli@me.com) who was in the audience – and who set to work — when Mr Tomlinson appeared at a question-and-answer session hosted by the Barnet Society.

In applauding Mr Sunak’s announcement that his predecessor was now Dame Theresa Villiers, Mr Tomlinson told the Barnet Post that he wanted to add his congratulations to the recognition she had received for her 19 years’ service as the Chipping Barnet MP.

“No matter our political differences, I’m genuinely heartened to see two decades of commitment to Chipping Barnet and public life recognised in this way.”

Posted on by

Inspiration award for years of support and assistance at Dollis Valley in sustaining foodbank and holiday lunch club for school children

A decade long association as a volunteer at the Rainbow Centre, the community hub for the Dollis Valley estate, has been rewarded with a Barnet Council “Inspiration All” award for Patricia Gay in recognition of her dedication and support.

Trish – as she is known to one and all – hopes her award will help publicise the campaign to end the continuing uncertainty over finding a permanent home for what is considered to be a vital resource for residents of the estate.

A weekly food bank and lunch club for children in the school holidays are just some of the many activities which could be threatened unless Barnet Council can find new premises.

Under existing redevelopment plans, the Rainbow Centre’s lease expires in May and the building is due to be demolished for the next phase of the housing regeneration scheme for the Dollis Valley estate.

“Unfortunately, we have been fobbed off time and again,” said Trish, who is a director of the Rainbow Centre’s users’ group.

“The council have assured us that they are actively searching for new premises for us but volunteers who give so much of their time to running a foodbank and children’s lunch club should not have to face uncertainty like this.”

She has arranged for Councillor Barry Rawlings, the Labour leader of the council to visit the centre, and she hopes the centre can finally get some clarity over what might happen.

“Ideally, we would like to stay where we are. We cannot understand why the building cannot be properly renovated or even rebuilt.”

Inspiration award from Barnet Council for dedicated volunteer at Rainbow Centre community hub for Dollis Valley estate

To the great disappointment of Trish – and Steve Verrall, director of the charity Barnet Community Projects – the council has withdrawn an earlier proposal to re-house the Rainbow Centre in a former cricket pavilion in Barnet Lane, Underhill.

This was first suggested four years ago.

There we high hopes as late as 2023 that the move would go ahead, but the council has informed the centre that this option would be too costly in view of the work needed to refurbish the pavilion, which has been vacant since construction of the Ark Pioneer Academy School on the site of the former Barnet Football Club stadium.

Trish said the volunteers at the centre – and other users such as a regular martial arts class – find the lack of any clear answer to the future extremely disconcerting.

“Let’s hope my Inspiration All award – which recognises the hard work of women and girls in supporting the community – will alert the rest of the council to our plight.”

Trish – who grew up on the Dollis Valley estate and who became a head girl at Ravenscroft School – started volunteering at the Rainbow Centre after she retired from her work as a secretary in the City of London.

“To begin with I helped at “Make Lunch” – our lunches in the school holidays for children who are on the free school meals register. In those days we were feeding anything from 50 to 60 children a day.”

Assisting with the weekly foodbank was another commitment. Donated food and other supplies are sorted and bagged up each Wednesday and then distributed each Thursday, helping up to 70 families a week.

Another project Trish helped with was a beauty course for young girls teaching them skills such as training to become nail technicians.

 Since becoming a director of the centre five years ago, Trish has helped resolve a range of troubling issues.

“There was a lot of anti-social behaviour around the centre. I contacted the Police and got that sorted. Fly tipping was another problem that had to be dealt with.”

Regular customers at the Sebright Arms in Sebright Road will be familiar with Trish’s regular fund-raising events.

Organising practical assistance is just as important. A Christmas Giving Tree at the Sebright encourages customers to buy and wrap up Christmas presents for the children of needy families on the estate.

Her latest pitch is to raise money for a computer for a Dollis Valley schoolboy who is about to take his A level exams in the hope of getting a place at Cambridge University to study engineering.

Trish was presented with her award by the Mayor of Barnet, Councillor Tony Vorou, at a ceremony in March.

Posted on by

Reliving the argument when Finchley and Hendon lost out to the three Barnets in deciding the name of the London Borough of Barnet

Information boards celebrating the 60th anniversary of the creation of the London Borough of Barnet are on display at Barnet Museum’s shop in The Spires shopping centre and at the Chipping Barnet Library.

Councillor Paul Edwards (above, far right), who opened the Barnet Museum display, recalled what it must have been like at the height of the disagreement about choosing a name for the new borough – especially when there was a real push at the time for Barnet to remain within Hertfordshire rather than become part of Greater London.

He believed that the Conservative minister at the time, Sir Keith Joseph, made the right decision in 1964 when the three Barnet urban district councils – Barnet, East Barnet and Friern Barnet – were amalgamated with Finchley and Hendon to establish what has become the London borough with the second largest population.

“When I used to work at Barnet Council there were still councillors who thought the Barnets should have stayed within Hertfordshire.

“I think it was the right decision to group them together within the Greater London Authority area.

“Keith Joseph made it happen. We can see now why the integration of the boroughs is crucial for the transport system and for the boroughs working together.”

Councillor Edwards was welcomed by museum curator Mike Noronha (above, left) and deputy curator, Hilary Harrison, who organised the collection and assembly of information for the display boards.

Such was the depth of the disagreement about what to call the newly created borough that a wide array of alternative names was put out for consultation – some of them made up from the local place names.

Instead of it being the London Borough of Barnet, it might have been the London Borough of Finchendon, Barnfindon, Northsex, North Ridge, Northern Heights, Dollis Valley or Grimsdyke, to name but a few.

In the end, when the five district councils failed to agree on a name, Sir Keith had to step in.

Both Finchley and Hendon were insisting they should be the borough’s designated name, but the minister opted for Barnet, despite the combined population of the outer districts failing to exceed either Hendon or Finchley.

In welcoming Councillor Edwards, Mike Noronha explained why there was every justification for naming the borough after Barnet.

The town was granted a charter in 1199 to become a market town; in 1471 it was the scene of the Battle of Barnet; in 1588 it gained a charter for Barnet Fair; between the 1820s and 1940s Barnet became an important transport hub for London with the opening of a rail station at New Barnet and then High Barnet; trams and then trolley buses ascending Barnet Hill; the tube station opening in 1940; and became a football town when Barnet won the FA Cup in 1946.

A Royal Commission in 1921 was the first to recommend the amalgamation of the outer districts around London but no action was taken because of World War II and a second Royal Commission established in 1957 by Harold Macmillan made fresh proposals for amalgamation.

In 1963, Sir Keith began the process of choosing a new name for what became the London Borough of Barnet.

After he rejected all the various alternatives – and the claims of Finchley and Hendon – the Queen approved the name Borough of Barnet in January 1964.

The first elections for the new authority were held in May 1964 and they met for the first time on 1 April 1965 – a total of 56 six councillors and nine aldermen.

London Borough of Barnet celebrates 60th anniversary of its foundation with displays featuring controversy about choosing the name

The museum’s display boards for the 60th anniversary feature photographs of the various former town halls – in Union Street and Wood Street, Barnet; and for East Barnet and Friern Barnet.

Among the newspaper cuttings is a feature based on Hertfordshire County Council’s plans to rejuvenate Barnet if the town had stayed within the county: one project was the construction of a town centre by-pass across St George’s Fields from the ponds on Hadley Green direct to Meadway.

Posted on by — 3 Comments

 Emerging from behind hoardings on the Great North Road will be new premises for what is said to be Barnet’s oldest cafe

Barnet’s popular roadside cafe, The Hole in the Wall, will have a prominent position on the Great North Road (A1000) if Barnet Council approves plans for redevelopment of the Meadow Works industrial estate at Pricklers Hill.

Instead of being hidden behind a line of hoardings, the cafe would be at the road frontage a new self-storage depot which will replace a group of workshops and other industrial and commercial premises.

An application by Compound Real Estate to regenerate the Meadow Works site with what it says will be a state-of-the-art self-storage facility, co-working spaces, and new premises for the Hole in the Wall Cafe, is now open for comment on the council’s planning website.

Support for the project has been indicated by the Barnet Society.

Robin Bishop, lead on planning and the environment, described the contemporary style of the new structure as “refreshingly restrained” for a self-storage facility, which was “nicely landscaped” along the A1000.

Although the original Meadow Works, midway between High Barnet and Whetstone – which started life as the Meadow Hand Laundry – was of historical interest, the society welcomed the improvement the project would deliver to the Pricklers Hill neighbourhood.

In seeking planning approval, Compound Real Estate say the replacement of a cluster of ageing and dilapidated light industrial buildings with a new self-storage facility and flexible co-working spaces will support local small businesses and entrepreneurs.

It calculates that the scheme will support the creation of up to 140 local jobs and deliver an annual financial uplift of £2.4 million to the local economy.

Compound say their scheme reflects the interests of surrounding residents and businesses by “replacing low-quality, temporary structures with a high-quality permanent development that addresses ground contamination, improves safety and enhances the environment.”

One immediate improvement for nearby residents will be the closure of the Dale Close access to Meadow Works, removing commercial service vehicles, to create a residential cul-de-sac.

Residents and interested parties can comment on the application until late April via the council’s planning portal (planning reference 25/1262/FUL) or by emailing planning.consultation@barnet.gov.uk

Planning application for new self-storage facility on Great North Road now open for comments on Barnet Council website

Kevin Callaghan, owner of the Hole in the Wall – established in 1935 as a popular stop off for traffic heading out of London — says he is delighted that the cafe will have a new permanent home.

“This is a real vote of confidence in small, local businesses. The site needs to be regenerated, and it is great that Meadow Works will be given a new lease of life.”

The switch to a self-storage depot was welcomed by the former owners of Meadow Works, James and Duncan Morris.

“We are pleased that the site will continue its industrial heritage and continue to support small and medium enterprises within Barnet.”

Jo Winter, development manager at Compound which specialises in developing and operating self-storage facilities integrated with co-working light industrial, said the company was committed to working with the local community and Barnet Council.

Posted on by — 3 Comments

MP says Barnet’s councillors should take final decisions on blocks of flats at High Barnet tube station car park and possible new football stadium  

When responding to the debate over the two most controversial development applications to have emerged since he was elected Labour MP for Chipping Barnet seven months ago, Dan Tomlinson is insisting he will maintain his neutrality.

He says final decisions on whether to construct blocks of flats at High Barnet tube station car park or build a new stadium for Barnet Football Club at Underhill should be taken by Barnet Council on the advice of its planning officers and committee.

When members of the Barnet Society discussed the two projects – immediately before hearing Mr Tomlinson’s response – there was a unanimous vote against Transport for London’s bid to build flats on the tube station car park and a split vote over a possible new stadium.

In reply, Mr Tomlinson – seen above with Robin Bishop (left) and chair John Hay (right) — was adamant that as the town’s MP he believed his duty was to address the concerns of residents and try to secure for them the best possible outcomes.

Personally, he thought a ten-storey block of flats at the tube station was too high.

He felt the football stadium was unlikely to get planning approval from the council because it would mean taking Green Belt land.

But he would not be intervening directly himself either in support or against the two projects.

“It is up to the elected Barnet Council to decide whether these schemes are in accordance with the local plan and whether or not they should be approved.”

He acknowledged that his predecessor, the former Conservative MP Theresa Villiers, had taken firm positions either for or against certain planning applications in the past, but this had resulted in local residents being “marched up the hill and down again” only to see schemes being approved in the end.

He believed his task was to help ensure that the views of his constituents were expressed to Barnet Council and to the developers and that he worked in conjunction with them and the residents to see how such schemes could be improved for the benefit of the community.

When it came to the blocks of flats at the tube station, he was keen to persuade TfL to keep much more space for car parking.

He would be following up ideas to see if underground car parking spaces could be provided beneath the development.

Mr Tomlinson was also in full agreement with tube passengers on the importance of providing a bus service direct to the station entrance and moving the north bound bus stop on Barnet Hill closer to the pedestrian crossing at the station approach road.

He was challenged over why he had not been influenced by the fact that no one in the room at the society’s meeting had voted in favour.

MP says Barnet’s councillors should take final decisions on blocks of flats at High Barnet tube station car park and possible new football stadium

An outline of the scheme had been given earlier by committee member Nick Saul (above) who said the development was unacceptable. The blocks of flats would utterly dominate the town, and he doubted whether the project was viable.

Mr Tomlinson reminded his audience that the land at the station was already allocated for 292 homes in Barnet Council’s local plan.

Building on station car parks was also included in the London plan, so there was a strong presumption in favour of the High Barnet scheme, but a ten-storey block of flats was too high and was not in keeping with the local plan’s recommendation of more than seven storeys.

“But if we can’t build flats for young people here on this site, where are we are going to put them?

“As your MP I will try to make the scheme as good as possible.”

When it came to the controversial application to build a new football stadium at Underhill, he was personally split 50/50 over whether it should be approved.

When discussing a return of the club with residents of the Dollis Valley estate he found there was strong support among some of those he spoke to.

Nevertheless, it was one of the few large open play spaces in the town and he did not think it likely Barnet Council would give approval because it was a site within the Green Belt.

If Barnet FC was refused permission, he undertook to work with the club and the Bring Barnet Back campaign to see if an alternative site could be found.

Green Belt land should be protected and if the housing target could be met with developments such as High Barnet station, then the council would not be under pressure to encroach on the green belt.

When challenged by one questioner over whether his stance of being neither for or against planning applications – and leaving it to the elected councillors – would protect the Green Belt, he gave this assurance:

“If there is a really abhorrent scheme, I won’t be agnostic.”

In his opening remarks, he said he had been working members of Chipping Barnet Town Team and Love Barnet to see whether more could be done to improve Barnet High Street.

One idea being explored with the Greater London Authority was to have a rental auction of empty High Street shops.

Under such a scheme, if a property had been left vacant for more than 12 months, Barnet Council could auction off a rental so that empty retail premises could be brought back into use.

An earlier discussion at the meeting had explored ideas for rejuvenating The Spires shopping centre.

As a previous redevelopment scheme was now in abeyance because of the financial difficulties facing the owners of the centre, Mr Tomlinson said he would be delighted to work with community groups to bring forward alternative proposals.

Barnet Council owned the freehold of the shopping centre site and there was every reason to open a discussion about the future of The Spires.    

Posted on by — 1 Comment

Planning surprise from Transport for London: construction of ten storey high block of flats next to entrance to High Barnet tube station

Revised plans for blocks of flats to be built over the car park at High Barnet tube station show that the highest would be ten storeys in height.

A total of five blocks ranging from eight to ten storeys would be constructed alongside Barnet Hill with the tallest opposite the lower entrance to the tube station.

There would be a new re-aligned approach road to the station and the siting of the ten-storey block (see above), positioned below Barnet Hill, was said to compensate for the extra height.

Transport for London’s property company Places for London and developers Barratt say the scheme will provide 300 new homes of which a minimum of 40 per cent will be affordable either through social rents or shared ownership.

A planning application for the development is due to be submitted by April or May with the hope that approval might be gained by the end of the year so that construction could start in 2026.

The revised plans were on show at a public exhibition at Tudor Hall which will be repeated on Saturday 1 March (11am to 3pm) followed by an online webinar on Tuesday 4 March from 6.30pm to 7.30pm (contact HighBarnet@fieldconulsting.co.uk)

A visual representation showed a new look bus stop on the station side of Barnet Hill.

A new pavement, which would be created beside the flats after the removal of the existing retaining wall, would extend down Barnet Hill with a new pedestrian crossing at the junction with Underhill.

Another illustration showed the position of the new flats when viewed from Underhill.

The proposed height of the blocks was criticised by Robin Bishop, who leads on planning for the Barnet Society. He considered the development was “entirely out of character” with the existing neighbourhood where most of the houses were of two to three storeys.

“These proposed blocks are three times taller than is normal for housing in the area and if the development goes ahead, it will alter the identity of the neighbourhood.”

Gordon Massey, planning officer for Barnet Residents Association, shared the society’s concern about the proposed height of the blocks.

Under Barnet Council’s local plan for the car park site, buildings of eight storeys or more would not be acceptable.

“This is an elevated site on Barnet Hill and if blocks of eight to ten storeys are approved this will drive a coach and horses through the local plan.

“The station site application is the first big scheme since the local plan was developed so this scheme is a real challenge for Barnet Council.

“If this development is approved it will set a real precedent. What would stop developers trying to build blocks of flats all along the Dollis Valley?”

Brendan Hodges, Places for London planning manager (above left) defended the proposed height of the blocks. He said the developers’ argument would be that local plans allowed for a case to be made and for flexibility.

“This development ticks all the boxes. It is a brown-field site with 300 homes, 40 per cent of them affordable, going to be built next to a tube station.

“It is a scheme which takes the pressure off surrounding land in the Green Belt and meets the government’s objective of building new homes.

“I think the fact that we have a local council, the Mayor of London and a government which are all aligned in wanting to achieve the same objective means the wind is blowing in our direction.”

When Places for London and Barratt held their first consultation on the plan in November last year the issue that caused the greatest concern was the confirmation that if the flats are built the tube station will lose all its 160 car park spaces.

A survey conducted since that exhibition disputed the contention that the loss of a car park would cause considerable inconvenience for passengers. It showed that the car park accounted for only eight per cent of the total daily entries to the station.

The survey showed that 42 per cent of those drivers who used the car park had a walking time of less than 30 minutes to the station and that 89 per cent of the drivers started their journey within 500 metres of a bus stop.

Gordon Massey dismissed these findings. Removal of all car parking spaces at High Barnet would have a detrimental impact on the town because more drivers would try to park within the town centre which would in turn cut the number of spaces for shoppers.

Despite the developers’ intention to create a dedicated drop off point outside the tube station entrance, he feared the loss of the car park would lead to even more congestion in the station approach road.

Posted on by

Whalebones development – Last chance to comment!

The deadline for comments on the planning application to build 114 homes on the field shown above is Tuesday 12 December. Barnet planners have already built them into the draft Local Plan, and we must work on the basis that they are likely to recommend approval of the plans. If you haven’t submitted your comments yet, there’s still time – you can do so here (or go to Barnet Council’s website and search for planning application 23/4117/FUL).

Residents successfully fought off the previous scheme in 2019, and since then public and political attitudes have significantly changed. Covid-19 greatly enhanced our appreciation of the value of open space and the natural environment. And in 2022, Barnet Council declared a climate and biodiversity emergency. We can fight this off too.

For a full description of the latest plans, see my web post in October.

Before finalising its opinion of the plans, the Barnet Society consulted its membership, some 750 in number. 17.5% responded – a good rate for organisations like ours, and better than in some local elections. Of those, 88% agree that we should object; only 7% support the development – an overwhelming majority.

On the Council’s planning portal, the weight of opposition is even more decisive. As I write, 306 have objected and only 19 have expressed support. But that may not be enough to see off the application. Over 500 people objected to the previous application in 2019. So your vote still matters!

Below is the Society’s submission:

The Barnet Society objects to this planning application on three main grounds: (1) overdevelopment, (2) harm to the Conservation Area, and (3) breaches of policy on open space, the environment and farming.

Overdevelopment

The 114 homes proposed far exceed what is necessary to fund reprovision for the artists, bee-keepers and farming by tenants, and for maintenance of the estate. We accept that some enabling development may be necessary to fund reprovision and maintenance of the estate, but that need only be a small fraction of the number of units proposed.

This is a large development on land which the Inspector described as a ‘valuable undeveloped area of greenspace’. The remaining open space would have the character of an urban park, not the rural character it has now – part parkland, part agricultural smallholding. There would be greater encroachment into the central area than was proposed in the 2019 application. Some buildings would be of 5 storeys, i.e. the same as the tallest of the hospital buildings. Setting back the building line from Wood Street would not be sufficient a visual break between Elmbank and the new buildings on the south side of Wood Street, and would blur the current separate identities of Chipping Barnet and Arkley.

Harm to the Conservation Area

The resulting loss of green space would seriously harm the Wood Street Conservation Area (WSCA) and set a very bad precedent for Barnet’s other conservation areas.

The Whalebones fields are integral to the history and character of the WSCA, and so must be preserved or enhanced. The WSCA extends this far west specifically to take in Whalebones, and defines its ‘open rural character’ and ‘views in and across the site’ as key. Building over the last remaining fields would brutally contradict several statements in Barnet’s WSCA Appraisal Statement and result in major harm. The Planning Inspector’s dismissal of Hill’s appeal against refusal of the previous application in 2021 recognised that the harm both to the Conservation Area and the setting of the listed house ‘is of considerable importance and great weight, sufficient, in my view, to strongly outweigh the public benefits which would flow from the development.’

Breaches of policies on open space, the environment and farming

A development of this type and scale would contradict other Council and national planning policies in relation to open space, the environment and farming. It would also be contrary to New London Plan policies G4.B.1 (no loss of protected open space), G6.D (secure net biodiversity gain) & G8, 8.8.1 (encourage urban agriculture), as well as the Mayor’s Environment & Food Strategies.

Disregarding all these would send Barnet residents a most unfortunate message about the Council’s understanding of the increasing value we increasingly attach to the natural environment – not to mention other issues such as healthy eating and food security. It would also be inconsistent with Barnet’s own declaration of a climate and biodiversity emergency.

Other matters

We support public access to at least part of the estate and enhancement of its natural qualities. But the previous owner Gwyneth Cowing allowed access by means of a permissive path, so providing a Woodland Walk is only replacing what has been withdrawn.

The application is unclear about the long-term ownership and management of the public space.

Notwithstanding the technical reports, we remain concerned about the poor ground conditions and the possible impact of the development on the drainage of neighbouring areas.

Conclusion

This site is precious: a unique historical survival and a living reservoir of biodiversity. Not only would the current proposals severely harm it, their approval would expose the eastern part of the site to further development. Their implementation would be a humiliating reminder of the Council’s failure to protect its past and plan constructively for its future. Please refuse the application.

I have requested to speak at the Planning Committee on behalf of the Barnet Society.

Posted on by — 1 Comment

Concerns grow about lack of Council notification of Whalebones planning application

Concern is growing that – nearly a month after a major planning application for 114 homes on the Whalebones fields was submitted – neighbours have yet to be formally notified by the Council. Barnet residents have until only until Tuesday 14 November to look at the plans and make their own comments, for or against.

Since this article was posted, the Council has identified an administrative error which resulted in non-delivery of the public consultation letters. It has now sent letters dated 31 October with a new 42-day consultation period (expiry date 12.12.2023). Further application documents are expected this month and the Council will also re-consult upon their receipt.

Of even greater concern is that the only visible public notice of the new application is both inaccurate and out of date. Unlike the previous Whalebones application and appeal there are no public notices attached to any of the various accesses and gates to the estate, small-holding, and fields.

As the photo above shows, the one and only sign is wrapped tightly around the circumference of a pole for a CPZ parking bay on Wood Street, a few yards along from the main Whalebones entrance. It cannot be read without turning full circle and stepping into a busy main road.

More to the point, it is out of date as it states that comments can be made until Thursday 2 November (and that the sign will be removed on November 3) when the final date for representations is in fact Tuesday 14 November. The absence of an up-to-date and correct public notification is a highly egregious omission.

The Whalebones estate is nearly 12 acres of ancient and biodiverse greenery visually separating Chipping Barnet from Arkley, looking south-west towards Arkley (as shown in the architects’ aerial visualisation at the top. The Arkley pub is at the top right, and Barnet Hospital is just off to the left). It is an integral part of the Wood Street Conservation Area, which encapsulates the story of historic Barnet, a town that grew up as a market for livestock that grazed on these meadows.

Barnet Council has a statutory duty to consult neighbours on planning applications. Its Statement of Community Involvement 2018 states in paragraph 5.1.2 that

‘The Council’s approach to publishing and consulting upon planning applications is:

  • to consult for 28 days;
  • to publish applications on the Council’s website; and
  • to publish a site notice and press advertisement when necessary and issue neighbour consultation letters.’

In 5.3.1 it adds, ‘For major developments with a wider effect, consultation will be carried out accordingly’.

To date, Barnet Society members who live adjacent to the site have not received any such letter. Our wider enquiries indicate that no-one else has either.

At the time of writing, 178 objections have been posted on the Council’s planning portal, and 3 comments supporting the planning application. When an application was made in 2019 for a scheme generally similar to the latest proposal but for 152 instead of 114 homes, 570 objections were received and 5 supported it.

It seems extraordinary, especially for a site that has been the subject of public interest and enjoyment for many years – and when the incoming Council committed itself last year to a greener Barnet – that special effort has not been made to engage with the local community.

Most residents can’t spare time to check weekly online on the off chance that a new planning application has been posted that might interest them. That’s why many of them join voluntary amenity groups such as the Barnet Society: we do that job for them. We’ll be submitting the Society’s comments by 14 November.

But there are many other residents who have an equal right to know about local applications that might affect them.

Paragraph 5.1.4 of the Statement of Community Involvement asserts that, ‘the Council values the contribution of all responses to planning applications to the decision making process.’ We ask it to act as a matter of urgency to inform neighbours – and everyone who commented on the 2019 application and therefore also have an interest. If necessary, the deadline for them to comment should be extended.

Posted on by — 1 Comment

Fairview & One Housing back for more (again) at Victoria Quarter

The Victoria Quarter illustrates – barely believably – the extraordinary lengths to which some developers go these days to cram housing onto their sites. After a decade campaigning for a development of the former gasworks site in the best interests of present neighbours and future residents, and seeing off several schemes that weren’t, locals might be excused for accepting a compromise solution. Instead, residents group Save New Barnet (SNB) are determined not to settle for a scheme that, as climate changes, could become a slum of the future.

The Victoria Quarter illustrates – barely believably – the extraordinary lengths to which some developers go these days to cram housing onto their sites. After a decade campaigning for a development of the former gasworks site in the best interests of present neighbours and future residents, and seeing off several schemes that weren’t, locals might be excused for accepting a compromise solution. Instead, residents group Save New Barnet (SNB) are determined not to settle for a scheme that, as climate changes, could become a slum of the future.

The battle over the 7.5 acres former gasworks site in New Barnet has been epic:

  • In 2017, after 4 years of negotiation, a scheme for 371 homes was given planning permission. Council and community agreed it to be a good blend of flats and family houses with gardens, most with views of Victoria Recreation Ground.
  • In 2020 One Housing with Fairview New Homes applied for permission for 652 units in blocks up to 10 storeys high. Following a local outcry, it was refused.
  • Undeterred, they returned in 2021 with a reduced scheme for 539 units in 13 blocks ranging from 4 to 7 storeys high. 800 members of the public objected. Last year the Council rejected that proposal too by 9 votes to 1 (with 1 abstention).
  • The developer appealed against the decision, but lost after a public planning inquiry.
  • They sought a judicial review of the appeal decision, but were refused.
  • In a final throw of the dice, the developer appealed in the High Court against that refusal. Last January that appeal was refused too.

At that point, you might think Fairview & One Housing would revert to the 2017 (approved) scheme – but you’d be wrong. Last month they came back with yet another planning application, this time for 486 units, 35% of them affordable.

 

They claim to be generally following the 2017 plan with its ‘finger’ blocks, but replacing the terraced houses and gardens with taller blocks to provide 76 more social and affordable homes. Their ambition is ‘to see Victoria Quarter become the most sustainable development that Fairview has delivered to date’.

In the Barnet Society’s opinion the scheme is architecturally nothing special, but an improvement on the others offered since 2017. The design is generally less fussy and overbearing. The landscaping works better. Most flats would have a view of the Recreation Ground. But we regret the complete absence of traditional private gardens, and that only 8 of the homes would be for larger families.

At a public meeting on 11 October an over-riding theme emerged: the poor environmental design of many of the homes. For example, around:

  • 20% of the flats would be single-aspect, so cross-ventilation in hot weather would be impossible.
  • 25% wouldn’t meet adequate daylighting standards, affecting mental health.
  • 45% would require active cooling to meet the minimum guidelines on overheating, the running cost of which would not be included in their rent.
  • And most homes would depend on mechanical ventilation and heat recovery (MVHR). If MVHR is switched off, condensation, mould and poor air quality would result, causing damage to the building fabric and potentially serious health consequences for occupants.

SNB have now publicised five design improvements that must be made before they could accept the scheme:

  1. Overheating – add brise soleil (sun louvres), and examine design/orientation of flats.
  2. Railway noise – add noise barriers at track level.
  3. Daylight/sunlight – reduce the 4 finger blocks to 5-storey instead of 6.
  4. High proportion of small flats – replace some of the single-aspect studio flats in the finger blocks with larger dual-aspect flats.
  5. Out of character with the area – address the comments raised by Barnet’s Urban Designers.

You can read SNB’s full objection here.

The Barnet Society supports SNB and is objecting to the planning application – despite our ardent wish to see new housing on this site. We’re YIMBYs: we’d love well designed new housing in Chipping Barnet. But it must be genuinely sustainable. Fairview & One Housing’s latest effort wouldn’t be.

Half a century ago, the construction and management defects of numerous postwar housing estates became apparent. Just because we have a housing shortage, we must not build another generation of sub-standard homes.

We urge you to object personally. You can do so on the planning portal. The deadline is Friday 3 November.

Posted on by — 3 Comments

Concessions at Whalebones – but not nearly enough

A new planning application is in for the Whalebones site. The plans have been scaled back from 152 to 114 homes, but in most other respects are similar to the one we objected to in 2019. To be clear: the Barnet Society doesn’t object to some housing to fund reprovision for the artists, bee-keepers and the current tenant farmer, and for maintenance of the estate. But the Trustees want way more than that. Our Committee is minded to object again, and encourages you to submit your own objections before the deadline of 14 November.

Read on to find out our grounds for objection, and how to submit your own.

The saga so far…

The Whalebones site is a surprising and wonderful survival – almost 12 acres of greenery and biodiversity close to the heart of Chipping Barnet. Although not designated as Green Belt, it includes the last remaining fields near the town centre and is integral to the Wood Street Conservation Area (WSCA). Anywhere else in the UK, surely, building over 6 acres of green space in a Conservation Area would be inconceivable.

The WSCA encapsulates 800 years of Barnet history. At one end is St John the Baptist’s church and our original marketplace, chartered in 1199; at the other end, open fields. Their juxtaposition is richly symbolic. Barnet’s growth to national status derived chiefly from livestock: herds were driven across the country to their final pastures on the fringe of the town, then sold at Barnet market. Building over the last remaining fields would brutally contradict several statements in the CA Appraisal Statement and amount to lobotomy of Barnet’s collective memory.

Hill, the developer working with the Trustees of the Whalebones Estate, first submitted a proposal in 2019. It was for 152 homes, 40% of which were to be ‘affordable’. A new building was to be provided for Barnet Guild of Artists and Barnet Beekeepers Association. The tenant farmer, Peter Mason and his wife Jill, would have rent-free accommodation and agricultural space for life. There were to be two new public open spaces including a health and wellbeing garden. A route between Wood Street and Barnet Hospital via a new woodland walk was offered.

Before responding we asked for our members’ views. A decisive majority of respondents – nearly 90% – opposed the scheme, and only three supported it. We therefore objected to the application. The plans were refused permission in 2020, and Hill’s appeal against the Council decision was dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate in 2021.

The latest plans include 114 new homes, of which 40% would again be ‘affordable’. ranging from 2 to 5 storeys in height. The building line along Wood Street would be set back. The blocks next to Elmbank would be reduced, as would be the single-storey studio for the artists and beekeepers. Gone is the health and wellbeing garden. The rest is much as proposed in 2019, but the eastern part of the site would remain in the ownership of the Trustees.

Information can also be found on Hill’s website: https://whalebones-consultation.co.uk/

The Society’s response

Our Committee has drafted the Society’s objection. These are its key points:

  • 114 homes far exceed what is necessary to fund reprovision for the artists, bee-keepers and tenant farmer and maintenance of the estate.
  • The Whalebones fields are integral to the history and character of the Wood Street Conservation Area. Their loss would seriously harm the CA.
  • That would set a very bad precedent for Barnet’s other conservation areas.
  • A development of this scale contradicts Council, London Mayoral and national planning policies that promote the value of open space, the environment and farming.
  • It would be inconsistent with Barnet’s declaration of a climate and biodiversity emergency.
  • The remaining open space would have the character of an urban park, not the rural character it has now – part parkland, part agricultural smallholding.
  • A Woodland Walk would merely replace the permissive path Gwyneth Cowing, the previous owner, allowed across the site.
  • Some buildings would be 5 storeys high, the same as the tallest hospital buildings.
  • Setting back the building line from Wood Street would not provide a visual break between the new houses and Elmbank. The separate identities of Chipping Barnet and Arkley would disappear.
  • The application is unclear about the long-term ownership and management of the public spaces or smallholding (after departure of the tenant farmer and his wife). If 114 homes are approved, the eastern part of the site will be ripe for further development.

Conclusion

If approved, these plans will represent a huge lost opportunity for Chipping Barnet. We don’t accept the applicant’s assertion that some form of agricultural or other green land-based activities would not be appropriate and economically viable. The developer hasn’t explored activities of a kind likely to have interested Gwyneth Cowing. These include a city farm for young and old people, including those with special needs, as just one possibility. Other acceptable uses include education, training and/or therapy in horticulture, animal husbandry and environmental studies, perhaps in partnership with a local school or college.

When this project began in 2015, the Council was seeking a replacement site for one of its special schools. Last year it approved a new school for 90 pupils with Autistic Spectrum Disorder in a converted office block in Moxon Street, with no outdoor play space except on its roof. It is a dismal comment on the priorities of the Trustees and the Council that locating it on part of Whalebones – the greenery of which would have been of profound benefit to the wellbeing and education to the pupils – was never considered.

In our view, any of the alternatives mentioned above would enhance the CA. They would also be in keeping with the spirit of Ms Cowing’s will. On the planning portal, a ‘Master Pipistrelle’ has posted a poignant Ode to Gwyneth. It includes these verses:

Eighteen ninety-nine was the year of Gwyn’s birth
At Whalebones, in Barnet on this green Earth
Was the Cowing’s estate, her manor-house home
A place where both artists and bees could roam…

Plan after plan, they’re ignoring Gwyn’s will
But the People are here, trying to instil
the ambition of Gwyn, for her home to enthral
To remain in the community forever and for all.

Too right! We’re currently consulting our members on our response.

How to object

Submit your own objections directly via the planning portal.

Or you can writing, with the application reference no. (23/4117/FUL) clearly at the top, to the Planning Officer:

Josh McLean MRTPI

Planning Manager

Planning and Building Control

Barnet Council

2 Bristol Avenue, Colindale, NW9 4EW

Posted on by — 1 Comment

Greening Barnet’s existing homes

My web post on 25 September about the crucial importance of minimising carbon emissions from Barnet’s existing housing stock looked at the challenge of upgrading the environmental performance of two houses on the Council’s Local Heritage List. This post shows what can be done to a more typical home in our borough.

No.1 Halliwick Road is an Edwardian semi-detached house typical of many in Barnet. Its owner, architect Ben Ridley, has radically upgraded it with the aim of making it an exemplar of sustainable retrofit on a constrained budget. When it was opened to the public earlier this month as part of London’s Open House Festival, it attracted scores of visitors.

Ben is the founding Director of Architecture for London https://architectureforlondon.com/, a practice with a track record of domestic and larger projects completed since 2009. Several have been published and won awards. He has expertise in Passivhaus design, an approach originating in Germany that through excellent thermal insulation, scrupulous airtightness and mechanical ventilation and heat recovery (MVHR) enables houses to provide comfortable living conditions with minimal use of energy.

Ben refurbished the façades of the existing house and its neighbour so that, seen from the street, they retain their traditional character.

This was achieved by insulating the front brick wall internally with 65mm of wood fibre finished with 10mm of lime plaster. The flank wall and the upper floor to the rear were insulated with 170mm phenolic insulation and coated with a grey render.

Internally, the ground floor has been almost completely opened up. This was not necessary environmentally, but provides a great sense of spaciousness and light, with daylight flooding in on three sides.

A back extension was added to the ground floor with walls of prefabricated 172mm structural insulated panels (SIPs).

Triple glazing was installed throughout. New double glazed vertical sliding sash windows were fitted, and behind them demountable secondary glazing panels are fixed and removed in summer. Continuous curtains provide additional thermal and acoustic insulation as well as privacy.

New windows are simply framed in wood and offer dramatic uninterrupted views of the greenery outside. A low-energy MVHR system ensures a supply of fresh, filtered and pre-warmed air when the windows are closed. Hidden ducts distribute fresh air and extract vitiated air via the roof.

The original suspended timber ground floor was overlaid with large Italian marble slabs for their visual quality and thermal mass. The void below was packed with insulation with sub-floor air vents to avoid condensation and decay. First floor timber joists and boards were exposed and cleaned up, and sound transmission between floors deadened by acoustic quilt. A wet underfloor heating system supplies the little space heating that such a well-insulated house needs.

The staircase has been replaced by a more compact one of plywood. A ground floor toilet is tucked underneath it. On the first floor is a new toilet and bathroom lined with limestone and wood. The existing loft has been converted into a bedroom and TV room.

The use of steel and concrete, which require large quantities of carbon to make, has been significantly reduced, with no steels used in the loft conversion.

The end result is a striking combination of traditional and contemporary craftsmanship that achieves a Passivhaus standard U-value of 0.15 or better (with the exception of the internally insulated front façade). The overall cost was around £250k + VAT – good value considering the extensive floor area (190sq.m.), especially at a time of high inflation and construction costs.

Ben Ridley has shown one way of upgrading an old house environmentally: there are others. But whatever you chose to do, it’s vital to (1) get appropriately qualified advice; (2) assess the whole building, its site and surroundings (even if your project has to be carried out in stages); (3) evaluate the likely costs of different options and possible sources of funds; and (4) use experienced contractors.

That’s easily said but in practice very challenging to achieve. The carbon reduction targets set by the Government are commendably ambitious, but to help meet them the only funding currently on offer to home-owners is grants of £5,000 for the installation of heat pumps. Although the need for better training of designers, engineers and builders has long been recognised, we also have a national skills shortage.

In Barnet, Council has launched some worthwhile initiatives following its declaration of climate emergency in May 2022, but the Barnet Sustainability Strategy Framework focuses, understandably, on improving the energy efficiency of Council-owned property to help achieve net-zero council operations by 2030.

As part of Building a sustainable future for Barnet, the Council also wants to ensure residents have access to the information they need to make sustainable choices. That would be a valuable start, but we’ve yet to find out how they propose to provide it.

Both Council and Government must do much more. As Marianne Nix, a Barnet Society member and house-owner keen to follow best practice says,

‘I can’t see how ordinary families will be able to manage. I can see the consequence – a lot of old buildings will be insulated incorrectly with all the wrong materials being used, and causing more issues and damage to properties in the long run.’

For these reasons the Barnet Society supports United for Warm Homes, a campaign by Barnet Friends of the Earth to petition MPs for:

  1. Urgent support for people dealing with sky-high energy bills.
  2. A new emergency programme to insulate our homes.
  3. An energy system powered by cheap, green renewables.

Please click this link to add your own support.

If you’re wondering what to do about your own home, the following sources of information may be helpful:

I’m most grateful to Ben Ridley for technical information and Dave McCormick for environmental advice on this article.

 

Posted on by

The Barnet Vale Festival is coming to Tudor Park on June 25th

The Barnet Vale Festival on Sunday 25th June is a free drop-in community event at the superb but dilapidated art deco pavilion in Tudor Park, Barnet EN5. It is organised by The Friends of Tudor Park and Pavilion (FoTPP), a group aiming to refurbish the pavilion as a new multi-functional hub for the community; and is a Barnet Society project.

Following the success of last year’s Picnic in the Park, FoTPP have organised a festival day to bring together and celebrate the local community.

Put Sunday 25th June in your diary for a day of live music, talks, stalls from local food vendors, an eco “show and tell” and fun for all the family. Festival displays and workshops include:

  • Children’s activities: making models, pavilion drawing, face-painting and treasure trail
  • Your opportunity to learn about the pavilion’s past and suggest what it could become
  • The Flower Bank: growing your own veg
  • Incredible Edible: you won’t believe what you can eat
  • Pavilion memories: local people record their stories

Talks will run from 12pm to 4pm* and include:

  • 12pm: Welcome by Simon Cohen, Chair of FoTPP
  • 12.30pm: History of Tudor Park Pavilion by Dr Susan Skedd, architectural historian
  • 1pm: Enhancing the buildings and green spaces of Barnet, by Robin Bishop RIBA, Barnet Society
  • 2pm: New uses for the Pavilion, by Simon Kaufman RIBA
  • 2.30pm: Regenerating Tudor Park, by Katy Staton LI
  • 3pm: Community Q&A – Regeneration of Tudor Park

* Timing of talks subject to change

The festival is part of the London Festival of Architecture, and is also supported by Friends of the Earth and The Barnet Society. We are grateful for a grant from Barnet Council.



Details:

  • The Barnet Vale Festival: Sunday 25th June from 11am to 4pm
  • At Tudor Sports Ground, Clifford Road, EN5
  • Please walk or travel by public transport if possible: parking is limited

For more information:

To support the pavilion project directly, go to FoTPP’s JustGiving donations page at https://checkout.justgiving.com/c/3434643.

Posted on by

London is set to lose 48,000 acres of its local countryside

Local councils in London and the Home Counties are currently planning to allow building on more than 48,000 acres of the Green Belt, according to a major new report by the London Green Belt Council (LGBC). That’s huge: the equivalent of the combined area of the London Boroughs of Barnet, Camden and Enfield – or of 60 Hampstead Heaths.

It is a shocking statistic, especially when the government – including both Conservative leadership contenders Rishi Sunak and Liz Truss – claims to be committed to protecting the Green Belt. Our own MP, Theresa Villiers, has called the situation ‘very worrying’.

The report ‘Safe Under Us’? The continued shrinking of London’s local countryside, 2022 shows that altogether the amount of Green Belt land offered up for development has increased by a massive 127% since 2016, when the LGBC first started tracking threats to London’s local countryside.

Land around London began to be safeguarded from the interwar sprawl of London’s suburbs in the 1930s, and in his 1944 Greater London Plan, Patrick Abercrombie proposed a ring of greenery around the capital. In 1945 our Society was founded to protect the fields around Chipping Barnet from being built over for 40,000 houses. In 1955 the Green Belt was enshrined in planning law, leaving us surrounded on three sides by greenery (see map below).

Since then the Green Belt has been a vital ‘green lung’ for Londoners seeking respite from their urban habitat. More recently, the vital role that open countryside plays in biodiversity, flood prevention and climate change mitigation has become obvious. The Covid-19 pandemic proved its enormous value to people’s health and wellbeing. And the Ukrainian crisis reminds us of its importance for food security.

‘Safe Under Us’? details the extent of Green Belt loss under the Local Plans currently being drafted by every Council. It points out how all of the region’s housing needs could easily be met by building on brownfield (previously developed) urban sites instead. The full report can be read here.

The report highlights the fact that many councils are still using housing figures based on out-of-date (2014) population and household projections from the Office for National Statistics when more recent and accurate Census figures show a marked slowing-down of population increase. Far fewer houses are actually needed than are currently being planned for.

Furthermore, adds LGBC Chairman Richard Knox-Johnston, “It is a fallacy that building in the Green Belt will provide affordable homes. New development in the Green Belt is mainly 4 or 5-bedroom homes built at very low densities since those are the most profitable for developers to build, so not providing affordable homes for young people.”

The counties of Hertfordshire, Essex and Surrey account for two-thirds of all the current development threats. Barnet is one of the least offending planning authorities, planning to build 576 homes on a mere 133 acres of the Green Belt. Fortunately, most of these are previously-developed land in Mill Hill (the former National Institute of Medical Research and Jehovah’s Witness sites).

Despite Barnet’s policies on protecting the Green Belt and environment, however, over the last five years around 40 planning applications have been made to build on Green Belt in or near Chipping Barnet. Most are to replace existing buildings with modest residential developments, but some cause us considerable concern. They include substantial gas and electricity plants off Partingdale Lane. The former was withdrawn and the latter refused permission – but Harbour Energy has just appealed against the latter decision, so that threat remains.

And Barnet’s draft Local Plan includes a proposal for a large leisure hub in the middle of Barnet Playing Fields – which are designated Green Belt – despite similar facilities being available for community use in two nearby schools.

The Society watches such cases closely. We’re strengthened by being longstanding members of the LGBC, and of its sister organisation, the Council for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE). Several of our Committee Members are actively involved with the LGBC: Derek Epstein is its Membership Secretary, Simon Watson manages its website and I’m on its Executive Council. Derek and I contributed to ‘Safe Under Us’?.

Posted on by

Victory for New Barnet residents over Victoria Quarter development

After a nine-day Public Inquiry last month in Hendon Town Hall, a Planning Inspector has dismissed Citystyle Fairview’s appeal against Barnet Council’s refusal of 539 flats on the former gasworks site. It’s a major victory for New Barnet Community Association and its supporters, including the Barnet Society, with important implications for other big developments in our neighbourhood.

John Dix of NBCA commented, “We are pleased with the Planning Inspector’s sensible and considered decision and hope that the developers will now actively engage with the community to develop a scheme which in more in keeping with the area and exemplifies good design. It should not be forgotten that if the developer had progressed the scheme approved in 2017, 371 homes would now be providing good quality accommodation for local families. The community has to be at the heart of any new development and an aspiration for quality is something that should be embraced.”

In 2020 Fairview decided that the site could accommodate many more flats, and applied for permission for 652 units in blocks up to 10 storeys high. Following local outcry and planning refusal, they returned with a reduced scheme for 554 units in 13 blocks ranging from four to seven storeys high. 800 members of the public objected.

In March, the Council rejected that proposal by 9 votes to 1 (with 1 abstention), chiefly on the grounds that it would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area including the adjoining Victoria Recreation Ground.

The Barnet Society objected to both applications. Although we’ve long supported housing on the site, we argued (amongst other points) that the mix should include more family homes, preferably with gardens. Our most recent web posts on the subject can be read here and here.

The two weeks of the Public Inquiry were intense and demanding for NBCA, who had opted to be a ‘Rule 6 party’. That required John Dix & Fiona Henderson (far R in top photo) and Karen Miller (R in photo below) not only to do a huge amount of preparation, but on almost every day of the Inquiry they had to make detailed statements about social and technical aspects of the proposals, grill Fairview’s expert consultants and endure hours of torrid cross-examination by Fairview’s QC.

Goodness knows how much time – and cost – the whole process must have involved.

On Day 3, the Inspector invited comments from other interested parties. Powerful statements were made by Councillor Phillip Cohen, Cllr Edith David, Cllr Simon Radford and Colin Bull of Cockfosters Local Area Residents Association (CLARA) – which has successfully resisted high-rise development of their tube station car park. And on Day 6, Theresa Villiers MP also spoke passionately against the proposal.

The Barnet Society had already submitted a detailed representation, but I took the opportunity to emphasize a couple of key points.

Firstly, back in 2010 we’d been impressed by the Council’s exemplary New Barnet Town Centre Framework, which was based on local consultation and set out a clear direction for development of the former gasworks site. Out of that had grown the mixed housing proposal that was granted planning approval in 2017, in which NBCA had been proactive.

I also made the point that, as a former architect and RIBA Client Design Adviser, I acknowledged that what was acceptable in 2017 might need updating in the light of technical and other developments. However, the latest scheme was a generic international modernist solution that had nothing in common with New Barnet’s character. It was a design approach that had been discredited when I was an architectural student over half a century ago, and New Barnet deserved better.

The Inspector’s verdict was clear: “Overall, I consider that the sheer scale of the proposed development would cause a dislocation within the area, inserting an alien typology of larger mass and scale and disrupting any sense of continuity between the areas to the west and east of the site. To my mind the existence of the taller buildings in the town centre cannot be seen as a compelling precedent for such an intrusion. These latter buildings are only on one side of the road and there is a considerably greater distance between them and the four storey buildings opposite.”

He also considered aspects of living conditions such as sunlight, daylight, noise, overheating, playspace, parking and refuse, and concluded, “Whilst none of the above issues are necessarily fatal to the scheme in isolation, taken together they do not indicate to me that the scheme can be considered to be of good design.”

East Barnet ward Councillor Simon Radford stated, “I am delighted that the Fairview appeal has been rejected. This is vindication for our campaign against tower block blight and overdevelopment. The Save New Barnet campaign have been steadfast in pointing out the various flaws of the scheme, and I was delighted to join them, along with my colleagues Cllr Cohen and Cllr David, in sharing our thoughts with the Planning Inspector about the potential for flats to overheat, the poor design of the development more generally, and concerns about how affordable these flats would really be.

“I am really proud that this new Labour administration will be bringing planning back in house, rather than continuing with the Tories’ outsourcing of planning to profit-seeking companies like Capita. This way we can have a genuinely democratic process to oversee developments and create developments that deliver genuinely affordable housing while being in keeping with the character of local communities. Today is a good day for East Barnet!”

The decision also has considerable significance for other sites across suburban Barnet and neighbouring boroughs, especially those close to transport hubs.

Nick Saul, a member of the Society’s Planning & Environment Sub-Committee, observed that the Inspector’s grounds included impact on the suburban nature of the Victoria Quarter’s surroundings. “That should indicate that TfL’s proposal for tower blocks at Cockfosters was a catastrophic breach of the policies and principles applied by the Inspector. That also applies to High Barnet Station.”

“The decision also has implications for the probable redevelopment of The Spires. It could also count against the plans exhibited for public consultation last week for a 7-storey redevelopment at 49 Moxon Street, as well as for the nearby commercial buildings that would likely face copy-cat proposals if No.49 were to gain planning permission.”