Tag: 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 — 1 Comment

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 — 2 Comments

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.”

Posted on by — 7 Comments

Help us save the grand old lady of Lyonsdown Road

Urgent action is needed to save 33 Lyonsdown Road following Barnet Council’s recent decision to allow its demolition. Together with local residents, the Barnet Society has been campaigning since 2017 to save this beautiful Victorian villa but the owners have used the permitted development route to apply to knock down the locally listed building.

Local residents are horrified that the council has allowed demolition of one of the finest buildings in New Barnet. One resident wrote that the proposed demolition was ‘very very sad … devalues [the] area and our cultural history means nothing.’ She added: ‘nothing seems to matter but building more soulless flats.’

We need your help to persuade the owners, Abbeytown Ltd, to change their plans to bulldoze this much-loved building, which they want to replace with a block of flats. The Barnet Society has written an open letter to Abbeytown to ask them to reconsider, which you can view here. We asked them to meet us and local residents last year to talk about the scope for a conversion scheme, but we heard nothing. Today we renew that call and invite you to write to the company at their head office:

Abbeytown Ltd

Martyn Gerrard House

197 Ballards Lane

London N3 1LP

Our last report on the case was in April, when the owners’ latest plans for redevelopment were thrown out by the government’s Planning Inspector. That good news was then undermined by break-ins at the property. It was later boarded up.

In June, permission to demolish was granted under the permitted development (PD) procedure, allowing small-scale changes to buildings without the need for the full process. But PD has been expanded by the government in all sorts of ways. The shocking decision to allow the demolition of 33 Lyonsdown Road was made, Barnet Council admitted, ‘by default’. It was not taken on the merits of the case on planning grounds; nor was it referred to the Planning Committee. The officer handling the case told the Society that, while we were welcome to submit comments, the Council was ‘not able to make our own assessments or consider comments from any parties in this determination’.

We highlighted the risk to the building early last year, saying the permitted development procedure means that the Council cannot consider keeping a locally listed building if a proposal to replace it is submitted. That process is enshrined in the National Planning Policy Framework. We told the Council that they could make sure that the decision couldn’t be taken away from them like this by imposing a block on demolition via an Article 4 direction. Councils – Barnet included – use these all the time to protect conservation areas and other historic assets. Barnet refused. We asked Councillors to intervene and they said there was nothing they could do. Their inaction runs counter to the Council’s recent declaration of a climate emergency, given the needless release of embodied carbon as a result of demolition and rebuilding.

The building is the last remaining of the large architect-designed houses of the 1860s which set the character of the Lyonsdown area. The house has featured in multiple Barnet Society webposts over the last few years and was picked up by the Victorian Society, SAVE Britain’s Heritage and the Nooks and Corners column in Private Eye.

Local historian Dr Susan Skedd researched the fascinating history of the house, discovering who designed it – Arthur Rowland Barker, an architect with a national-level practice, who settled in Southgate and was a prominent figure in the area – and the later history of the house when it was a refuge home run by the Foundling

Below: The Renaissance-style plaque of the Madonna and Child over the main door to the house

Today, the house is boarded up and down at heel. What a contrast with how it looked less than a decade ago, when the window frames were smartly painted, the lawns mown and the hedges clipped. It was then in the ownership of the Roman Catholic Society of African Missions, who in 2015 sold it to Abbeytown Ltd, a Finchley-based property development firm, whose directors include Simon Gerrard, Managing Director of Martyn Gerrard estate agents.

The Barnet Society is convinced that such a well-built house could be repaired. Local residents agree, as did the property guardians who lived there until last year. They loved the place and had made it a haven for ‘boho creatives’. When Abbeytown gave the guardians notice to quit, they told them that it was no longer safe to live there because of the condition of the building. Now the company says the building has two tenants living there.

Abbeytown have not said what they intend to build in its place after demolition. They will need planning permission for that. Their last two applications to put up a block of flats were turned down by the Council. On both occasions, Abbeytown appealed but Barnet’s decisions were then endorsed by Planning Inspectors. It is deeply saddening that Barnet’s officials should roll over so easily this time.

The Barnet Society has argued all along that this striking landmark building with its elegant interiors should not be demolished but repaired and converted to flats. There is scope for a sympathetic extension or a newbuild element in the garden among the splendid trees. Local people have clearly voiced their view that another block of flats is not what they want to see.

Our campaign to save the building has attracted the support of national heritage bodies. The Victorian Society has written: ‘The Victorian Society is fully supportive of the Barnet Society and enthusiastically echoes its continued calls to see this handsome, locally significant building preserved and sympathetically adapted for future use. Although the demolition of the building is now permitted, while it still stands, it is not too late for a change of approach to the redevelopment of the site’.

SAVE Britain’s Heritage commented: ‘SAVE is disappointed by Barnet’s Council’s decision not to resist the demolition of this attractive villa, a building the Council only recently added to its list of locally listed buildings.  The case exemplifies the misuse of permitted development rights to demolish structurally sound historic buildings, regardless of their potential for re-use and conversion. This villa could be converted to provide much needed and characterful housing, making use of the remarkable interior features that survive.  Instead these will now be condemned to the rubbish tip.’

Please copy us into any correspondence with Abbeytown at info@barnetsociety.org.uk.

Posted on by

Green Belt reprieve from Mill Hill power plant proposals

Barnet Council has refused planning permission for a 50-megawatt electric battery array in the green heart of the borough. An earlier application for a gas peaking plant nearby was withdrawn last year. Mill Hill’s Green Belt has been saved for the moment – but if the UK is serious about reaching zero-carbon, an alternative may still need be found somewhere in the vicinity.

Tucked away on pastures north of Partingdale Lane and mostly screened by woodland is one of Barnet’s visual surprises – a National Grid substation that looks as if it recently landed from an alien planet. In fact it’s been there for years, largely unnoticed except by walkers or horse-riders. Equally surprisingly, it sits on Barnet’s Green Belt and a site of Metropolitan Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC).

The site first came to the attention of many Barnet residents in 2019, when TNEI applied to build a gas peaking plant, increasing the footprint of the substation by some 25%, on the east side of the existing National Grid plant. TNEI’s justification was that it “would help to ensure that National Grid is able to ‘keep the lights on’ in the UK as the electricity system strives to maintain the balance between supply and demand while rapidly decarbonising.” Following over 400 objections, and perhaps a rethink about gas, the proposal was withdrawn a year ago.

Meanwhile Harbour Energy had submitted another application, to install a battery storage facility including 20 battery containers (each nearly 14m long and 3m high) and 10 inverter and transformer stations, plus security fencing and other associated works, on the west side of the plant. Harbour argued that the proposed development “would store power from the Grid at times of excess supply and would feed this power back into the grid at times of high demand/reduced generation capacity.” They claimed that no other suitable sites were available in or around Barnet.

This time there were 912 objections. They included one from Theresa Villiers MP on the grounds that, although outside her present constituency boundary, the battery array would adversely affect her constituents. She and others were very concerned about nitrogen oxide emissions, air and noise pollution, and their impact on natural habitat, wildlife and ecosystems. Most were also opposed to any encroachment onto the Green Belt or SINC.

That was also the Barnet Society’s chief concern. The site is part of a wonderful tract of fields and woods that survive between Totteridge and Mill Hill, much loved by the residents who live around it and walk or ride across it.

We didn’t dispute the growing demand for energy, but battery storage and power generation aren’t listed among the ‘very exceptional circumstances’ permitted by the National Planning Policy Framework. In our view, the development would only be justifiable as part of a coherent regional energy strategy that included detailed evaluation of alternative sites, endorsed by full public consultation and political support. None of these were evident. Approval would set a damaging precedent, opening the door to ad hoc proposals on other Green Belt sites.

We therefore welcomed the unanimous refusal of the application by Barnet’s Planning Committee B on 30 March, contrary to the Planning Officer’s advice to approve it.

The conflict between our environment and our demand for energy will go on. The government’s recently-published British Energy Security Strategy is too high-level to help in situations like this. It acknowledges planning issues, but doesn’t mention Green Belts once.

The threat to the Green Belt in Mill Hill has been beaten off, at least temporarily – but it’s under attack elsewhere. As I write, a proposal has been submitted for up to nine houses on farmland by Mays Lane, and a second application is in for Arkley Riding Stables off Barnet Road (this time for three, not four, houses). And a field by Hendon Wood Lane has yet to be cleared of builder’s mess after years of illicit use as a yard. The Society can’t drop its guard.

Posted on by

New special needs school approved in Moxon Street office block

Last night Barnet Council’s Strategic Planning Committee unanimously approved conversion of the existing building into a 90-place school for pupils with Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD), despite concerns on the part of the Barnet Society. We wish it well, however – and hope it will trigger use of King George’s Fields for outdoor education, and perhaps a Forest School.

The Windmill School is sponsored by Barnet Special Education Trust (which already runs Oak Lodge School in East Finchley) and will be the first publicly funded school for Autism in the Barnet area. Public consultation on the proposal opened last October, with an exhibition in Tudor Hall. The scheme was described by Nick Jones here.

The origins of the proposal go back to 2017, when the Trust began searching for a suitable site for a second school. The offer of Department for Education funding to acquire a site, design and build a new school was never going to be turned down by the Council. Barnet is short of places for children on the Autistic spectrum and many sites were considered – though not, apparently, the Whalebones estate, which some would regard as an ideal site for a school, especially one wishing to develop an outdoor curriculum.

By 2021 the search was getting desperate. The Council rejected our suggestion of converting Grasvenor Avenue Infant School, which is due for closure. Its plan is to utilise the premises as an annex to Northway Special School. Due to the demand in Barnet for specialist places for ASD, both sites are apparently required to meet the demand.

No.50 Moxon Street was deemed the only remaining option. Over the last decade, numerous new schools and academies have been accommodated in redundant commercial and industrial buildings, often on confined urban sites. Where cleverly adapted, they can work well. But since most lack much in the way of outdoor space, they generally depend on timetabled access and imaginatively landscaped play terraces to compensate.

And while they can work for able-bodied and orderly pupils, this is often not the case for those with ASD. Their behaviours are often solitary and challenging, and so require more personal space than other children. Compounding the problem, Windmill School would have a very wide age range, from 5 (but sometimes cognitively younger) to 19. Each age and ability group would need its own appropriately designed and sized play facilities, which could not readily be shared. It’s also increasingly being realised that natural outdoor environments are particularly beneficial for those with ASD.

At Windmill, most outdoor needs will have to met in a rooftop playground that is only about 20% of the DfE’s minimum area recommendation for a school of this size and type. This causes us deep concern. The Trust’s Development Director, Ian Kingham, admitted to the Planning Committee that the playground was “woefully under area” but said that it was “the best option we have”.

Mr Kingham also asserted that the costs of transporting pupils to nearby outdoor green space “would not be a material factor”. But enabling children with ASD to access them safely requires commitments of time and staffing that most schools find hard to fund at the best of times. Sadly, because of the 2.5-metre solid wall around the rooftop playground, the nearby greenery will be almost invisible during normal play-time.

Those were the main reasons our Society Committee was concerned, but before deciding, we canvassed our members. For every member in favour, 14 opposed it. So we felt we had to object to the planning application, much though we like the principle of an ASD school.

It would be great if the Council’s decision galvanised the planners, Town Team and Chipping Barnet Community Plan to do something to improve connections from the town centre to King George’s Fields. Our existing woodland is potentially a marvellous Forest School only 50 metres from Moxon Street – but there’s currently no direct access between the two. Before long, proposals are expected for 49 Moxon Street, the property that blocks the way. It could be made a condition of planning approval that a public right of way is granted across the site to enable Windmill pupils – and the public – to benefit from the beauty and educational value of one of Barnet’s wonderful natural resources.

Posted on by — 1 Comment

Sunset View win at appeal vindicates Council and Barnet Society persistence

Eighteen months ago, the Barnet Society wrote that flouting of planning laws at 1 Sunset View and 70 High Street would be tests of Barnet Council’s will to enforce its planning decisions. Both owners appealed against Enforcement Orders, and both have lost. The decisions are significant victories over the degradation of Barnet’s Conservation Areas.

 

The saga of 70 High Street, which is within the Wood Street Conservation Area, was described in our web post last October. A Planning Inspector ordered the building, which exceeded its approved height by about 1.5m, to be demolished and the previous building to be reinstated.

A new planning application (no. 22/0835/FUL) has recently been submitted. Despite the inspector’s stipulation that the building be rebuilt as it was before, the new owners propose just to reduce the roof height but retain most of what has been built. The resulting facade is a poor effort which still clashes with its neighbours. We will be submitting comments shortly.

No.1 Sunset View was one of the best and most prominent houses in a road that is a North Barnet classic of garden suburb design, master-planned and largely designed by local architect William Charles Waymouth in the early 20th century. The houses are attractive variations on Arts and Crafts themes, and together comprise an unusually complete and high-quality development for its period. It’s an important part of the Monken Hadley Conservation Area.

The Society got involved almost five years ago, when a planning application was submitted to make drastic alterations and additions to the house. It was strongly opposed by local residents and the Society, and was withdrawn. We nominated the house for addition to the Council’s Local Heritage List, and in July 2019 it was formally Listed. The Council’s citation draws attention to the “considerable variety of well-crafted brickwork, door and window details…unified by consistency of materials” and mentions its attached garage, something of a novelty in the early days of mass motoring.

In 2018 another application was made, but refused. A third application was less damaging than the previous two but was still opposed, though this time it was approved.

In spring 2019 work started on site, but we became concerned when the original brown roof tiles were stripped off, smashed and replaced with red. When unauthorised rooflights appeared, the planners served a Breach of Condition Notice. You’d think that might have been a warning to the owner, but apparently not.

Over following months, the rear balcony was demolished and chimneys rebuilt, but not exactly as before. Original Crittall windows were replaced with clunky uPVC. New side windows appeared. The traditional front door was replaced with a modern one. The integral garage was rebuilt – taller than before, and with a new window behind fake garage doors. The freestanding garage in the same style as the house was demolished and replaced with a wider, more modern garage with an up-an-over metal door. The low brick front garden wall was replaced with high railings. The front garden was covered with concrete paving blocks. The attractive Arts & Crafts interior was gutted.

None of these changes were in materials or style faithful to the original, and none was made with planning consent – a requirement in Conservation Areas. Cumulatively, they seriously eroded the house’s original quality. The Council issued several Enforcement Notices, and in November 2020 the owner appealed against them.

Finally, after a 15-month wait, a Planning Inspector has upheld all but one of the Council’s Notices. The bricks used in the extensions can stay, but all the other features must be removed and replaced to match the originals. The owner has six months to do the work.

Sunset View resident Bill Foster commented,

“It is great news that the Planning Inspectorate has ruled in favour of Barnet Council’s Enforcement Notices and many of No 1’s architectural features that were removed will have to be restored. Hopefully this will also send a clear message to anyone else seeking to make inappropriate alterations to buildings in a conservation area that they won’t get away with it. We are very grateful to the Barnet Society for all the support given to us over the past five years.”

Both 70 High Street & 1 Sunset View have been important victories in the cause of protecting the Conservation Areas. They have demonstrated that the planning system can be brought to bear against demolition (or partial demolition) of heritage assets without consent and building something which flies in the face of what has been given consent. Both cases have been a huge waste of time (and money) because we shouldn’t have to defend what is so clearly expressed in the law and the planning system. We hope the outcomes will serve to increase awareness of this, and show developers that Barnet is not a pushover.

A better approach to building in a Conservation has recently been illustrated at the other end of Sunset View. Last year, the owner of another of the street’s charming houses wanted to replace its porch and make some other modifications, and consulted the Society on their design. We made some constructive suggestions – and lo! Some changes in keeping with both house and street.

Posted on by — 1 Comment

Rambles round Barnet – enjoy them while you can!

Chipping Barnet is a great base for some glorious countryside walks, and the best are described in Rambles Round Barnet – two volumes published by the Barnet Society. The good news is that Volume I has just been reprinted in a limited edition. The bad news is that some of the walks are threatened by development, so walk them while you can.

Rambles Round Barnet – In the footsteps of EH Lucas was published by the Barnet Society in 2012 and has been out of print. It was a handy A5 booklet containing four walks from a guidebook originally researched by EH Lucas, the Society’s Treasurer (1948-70), and issued by the Society in 1948.

In 2013 a further three walks from Lucas’s guide were published in Volume II, which is still in print and available from Waterstones in The Spires or directly from the Society.

One of the few benefits of Covid-19 has been revival of interest in the countryside, with a noticeable increase in walkers and cyclists on local paths in the last year. At the conclusion of the Society’s 75th anniversary year, it seemed appropriate to reprint Volume 1.

The reprint is a facsimile, in a limited edition of 150, of the 2012 booklet. No attempt has been made to alter the charming text and illustrations of the 2012 edition, which was largely the work of Owen Jones and David Ely, but eight pages of updates and additional information have been inserted as a postscript. Both Rambles I & II are on sale from Waterstones in The Spires and Barnet Museum, or direct from the Society at £6 per volume (or £10 for both) plus postage and packing. Contact details are given below.

No-one would claim that Barnet and Hertfordshire can compete with more dramatic landscapes elsewhere in Britain. But their quiet qualities often get overlooked, and Covid-19 has reminded many of us how valuable they are. Rambles may not be up there with Guide to the Lakeland Fells, Alfred Wainwright’s famous walking guidebooks to the Lake District. But they are full of shrewd observations and good advice. Lucas, Jones and Ely are Barnet’s Wainwright, and deserve to be celebrated.

The four walks described in Rambles Round Barnet – In the footsteps of EH Lucas are:

Walk 1 – The green heart of Barnet  This takes you through countryside that was threatened, in 1945, by Barnet Council’s plans to triple the population of Chipping Barnet to 60,000. The Barnet Society was founded to fight them, and did so successfully.

Walk 2 – Mimmsy meadows and bluebell woods  Between South Mimms and North Mymms (sic) is a beautiful circuit of sequestered woods, open meadows and long views – amazingly, never more than about half a mile from the M25 or A1.

Walk 3 – Ancient fields and a magic grove only half a mile from built-up Barnet  This walk includes two delightful tracts of countryside, one each side of the A1, and an enchanted grove, half a mile long, of venerable trees bordering Dyrham Park.

Walk 4 – Traditional farmland meets modern motorway  Not a walk for those seeking respite from the 21st century, though it has sweet rustic moments. But if you wonder whether English countryside can coexist with modern technology, this is the place to find out.

The walks have all been checked this spring. As well as containing additional information, the insert picks out highlights, lists any changes since 2012, and gives tips on routes and good times to go.

All the walks take you through countryside designated as Green Belt after the 2nd World War, partly due to the campaigning of the Society. With a few exceptions, development is permitted only in very special circumstances. But that hasn’t stopped many applications being submitted. That the landscape has survived largely unspoiled for 75 years is testimony to ongoing work by us and other voluntary groups in Barnet and Hertfordshire, as well as the stewardship of both councils.

However, this reprint is tinged with concern that some of the walks will be lost within a few years. Although the UK government and Barnet Council claim to be committed to retaining the Green Belt, and the walks themselves are mostly safeguarded Rights of Way, major developments are currently being planned on or near land over which they pass.

Most of the open land north of the M25 and both sides of the A1 has been identified in Hertsmere Council’s draft Local Plan for potential housing and employment development, as well as pockets south of the M25. Huge Sky and Hertswood film studio complexes are proposed for fields south of Rowley Lane. New Rabley and Redwell ‘Garden Villages’ are proposed near South Mimms. These will all leave a massive mark on what is at present open greenery.

Nor is Barnet Council exempt. Although it plans to create a major new Regional Park between Arkley, Mill Hill and the A1, it also proposes to build an £11m community and leisure hub in the middle of Barnet Playing Fields – which the Council itself has designated Green Belt.

This web post is therefore not simply an invitation to buy Rambles Round Barnet – Volume I while stocks last. It also urges you to get out and savour our wonderful countryside while it is still there to enjoy.

Posted on by

Is there an assured future for High Barnet’s historic cattle trough and marble drinking fountain

Barnet Council’s highways department is preparing a new set of policies for the future safeguarding and maintenance of historic structures such as horse troughs and street signs.

Continue reading Is there an assured future for High Barnet’s historic cattle trough and marble drinking fountain

Posted on by

Tower block heights reduced after complaints about New Barnet’s “high-rise monstrosity”

Developers seeking to build 554 homes on the former gas works site in New Barnet have released new images to show how the height and density of the proposed tower blocks has been reduced in a fresh attempt to gain planning approval.

Continue reading Tower block heights reduced after complaints about New Barnet’s “high-rise monstrosity”

Posted on by

Fly tippers beware: Monken Hadley Common curators intend to fight back

Fly tipping of garden rubbish and even builders’ rubble has become a worrying problem along the edges of Monken Hadley Common – and the worst offenders are a few of the owners of the priciest properties in roads such as Parkgate Crescent, off Camlet Way, and Fairgreen, off the Cockfosters Road.

Continue reading Fly tippers beware: Monken Hadley Common curators intend to fight back

Posted on by

A never ending challenge: guarding the historic heart and landmarks of Chipping Barnet

Protecting the historic townscape around Barnet parish church, Hadley Green and Monken Hadley requires the constant monitoring of planning applications – a task that is becoming no easier thanks to cuts made by Barnet Council.

Continue reading A never ending challenge: guarding the historic heart and landmarks of Chipping Barnet

Posted on by

Locally listed landmark at risk

The future of 33 Lyonsdown Road New Barnet hangs in the balance as the last the property guardians have left the villa. This locally listed building has been threatened with demolition by its owners, Abbeytown Ltd, who unsuccessfully applied to build a five-storey block of flats on the site.

Continue reading Locally listed landmark at risk

Posted on by — 1 Comment

Power wash brightens up Church Passage after bench restoration

Community action to clean and oil the extra long bench in Church Passage has spurred Barnet Council to act: its street scene department has carried out a power wash of a section of the paving to remove grease and grime left by accumulated food stains.

Continue reading Power wash brightens up Church Passage after bench restoration

Posted on by — 1 Comment

Community action delivers — volunteers scrub clean the longest bench in Barnet

A band of volunteers spent the afternoon scrubbing down High Barnet’s most popular street art fixture — the long teak bench that extends for much of the length of Church Passage and provides a welcome resting place for one and all.

Continue reading Community action delivers — volunteers scrub clean the longest bench in Barnet

Posted on by

Can you believe it? Aberdeen Council now owns historic Barnet marketplace

Land Registry documents hold the answer to at least some of the mystery surrounding the ownership and future of High Barnet’s vacant market site: the land is now owned by Aberdeen City Council which purchased the site for £4 million in April 2019.

Continue reading Can you believe it? Aberdeen Council now owns historic Barnet marketplace

Posted on by

Semi-finals for Victoria Quarter as gas works site developers try again for approval

After being roundly refused planning permission last year and failing to get the support of the Mayor of London, developers are again inviting residents to offer ideas and opinions on fresh proposals for a massive housing scheme on the New Barnet gas works site.

Continue reading Semi-finals for Victoria Quarter as gas works site developers try again for approval