Tag: Chipping Barnet

Posted on by — 20 Comments

High Barnet Place planning application refused by 8 votes to 1!

After a nearly three-hour Strategic Planning Committee meeting this evening, Barratt London’s planning application for 283 flats on High Barnet Station car park was refused on grounds of excessive height and harm to local context (see jtp Architects & Masterplanners visualisation above). It’s a magnificent vindication for the 802 Barnet residents who objected to it.

The decision follows last Thursdays’ rejection of a much larger proposal for 1,485 homes plus replacement leisure, sports and other facilities on the site of the former Great North Leisure Park off the A1000 by the North Circular in Finchley. It’s encouraging that the Council is willing to treat cases on their merits instead of simply shooing through every housing project.

The Barnet Society role

The Society had submitted a 64-page critique of the application plus a further 8 pages of comments on recent Barratt amendments. In his report, the Planning Officer summarized our comments in just 10 lines, a feat of compression worthy of a planning award. But that didn’t matter as we had circulated our full comments to all Councillors on the Committee, as well as to the Councillors of Barnet Vale, High Barnet & Underhill wards.

We’d collaborated closely with Barnet Residents Association (BRA) whose submission was broadly aligned with ours; and members of both organisations were kept informed at all stages. Of the 802 individual comments posted on the planning portal, it was notable how many were well argued, detailed and by no means standardized letters – unlike many of those supporting the application.

The meeting

At the meeting the Planning Officer summarized his 100-page report and recommended approval of the application.

Three ward Councillors then addressed the meeting in person (in addition to the nine Councillors on the Committee itself): Cllrs Sue Baker, David Longstaff & Mark Shooter. Though from three different parties, all passionately opposed the application, which may have made an impression on the members of the Committee.

A dozen objectors had asked to speak but Committee rules only allowed one. By prior agreement between them Simon Kaufman, a local architect and Society member, spoke against the scheme, supported when it came to questions from Councillors by Gordon Massey of BRA and Nick Saul of BRA & the Society.

Simon began by circulating some of Barratt’s misleading visualisations, pointing out that the height of several blocks exceeded the limits in Barnet’s Local Plan. He disputed that the design was ‘exceptional’ as Barratt claimed. No Conservation Officer’s view had been obtained on the impact of the design; it would be visually dominant, out of character and harm the settings of St John the Baptist’s Church and High Barnet Station. He deplored the quality of the housing and public realm; the result would not be an inclusive, sustainable community. He noted numerous concerns about personal safety and vehicle congestion. Public consultation had been performative, not collaborative. The scheme offered no tangible community benefits, repeated mistakes of the 1970s and Barnet would inherit the long-term costs.

One young woman, a student of Barnet & Southgate College, spoke in support of the application – but when asked by a Councillor if she would like to live in the development, admitted that she didn’t live in Barnet and probably wouldn’t.

Barratt were represented by project director Martin Scholar and a colleague. They emphasized their experience of delivering similar housing developments and denied that financial viability was their only criterion.

Committee Chair Cllr Nigel Young probed Barratt’s justification for breaching the 7-storey height limit for the site in Barnet’s Local Plan. When they replied that the station would benefit from a tall landmark, he quoted from the Plan’s Examining Inspectors who had identified High Barnet’s skyline as a defining feature of the locality and asked whether they had given that due consideration. Barratt’s representatives didn’t have a satisfactory answer.

Committee members then debated the proposal between themselves, but when put to the vote the outcome was surprisingly decisive.

What will happen next?

The application, being one of strategic importance to London, must be referred to the Mayor of London, who may call it in or refuse it.

Barratt has the right to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate against the Council’s refusal, but that would entail months of delay with no guarantee of success.

A simpler solution would be for Barratt to slice the tops off blocks over 7 storeys and modify the design to look more in keeping with the existing neighbourhood. That would probably mean offering less than the 40% of affordable housing in the rejected scheme. However, if they could significantly improve interchange and accessibility between all forms of transport around the station – and even provide some car parking – they might surprise themselves by the amount of public support a new scheme could attract.

Below (L to R): Gordon Massey (BRA), Simon Kaufman & Nick Saul display three shades of happiness at the scene of their victory.

Posted on by — 11 Comments

Public consultation on proposed new house in Christchurch Lane spinney

Local developer Christchurch Grove Ltd expects to submit a planning application soon to build a house within existing woodland on the east side of Christchurch Lane (see plan above by Helene Landscape and Garden Design). It raises an increasingly urgent question in Barnet: how much, if any, green space should be sacrificed for new homes?

I wrote about this peaceful haven of wildlife less than 200 metres from Barnet High Street in a recent web post. Situated within the Monken Hadley Conservation Area, with numerous trees protected by Tree Protection Orders, it forms a ‘green corridor’ between two major pieces of Green Belt land, Old Fold Manor golf course and Hadley Green. Its value for biodiversity is greater than its small size (0.438 hectare / 1 acre) would suggest. https://www.savechippingbarnetwoodland.org/ is petitioning to save it from development.

The Barnet Society got involved 18 months ago when the Council decided to sell its portion of the land for £430,000, subject to the buyer obtaining planning consent. Since the part of the site where development is proposed has the least ecological value, a case could be made for building a single house.

Our concerns were twofold. The quality of the wood had to be conserved and enhanced wherever possible. And any house and garden must be in keeping with their natural setting and built to high environmental standards.

The initial plans fell short on all counts. To the developer’s credit, the scheme has now been revised. Whether it meets our original concerns we’ll find out at a public consultation on Friday 12 December from 4.30pm till 7:00pm at Pennefather Hall (next door to Christ Church), St Albans Rd, Barnet, EN5 4AL.

The developer’s team of planning, architectural, ecology and Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) consultants will be on hand to advise on their proposals. They are also offering to place a covenant on the site to the Barnet Planners to restrict planning permission to one residential property only, to allay concerns about any future or further development of the land.  

They trust that this transparency will dispel many negative comments, especially on the ecology and BNG improvements to the site. 

There is limited parking available on site, which is only a 5-minute walk from The Spires and alternative parking. 

Below is a visualisation of the proposed house by Alan Cox Architects.

Response from Andrew Robinson, Project Manager, Christchurch Grove Ltd.

As the person responsible for bringing forward the plans for a new home on this neglected pocket of land in Hadley Green, I am obliged to the Barnet Society, for giving me the opportunity to correct a number of errors in the recent article and the basis for the petition which has recently been organised.

Robin’s article queries that the site in Christ Church Lane, which he describes as a “haven of wildlife” has not been included in the London’s wildlife plan [Nature Recovery Plan]. The answer is simple. Whilst the site is home to a number of fine tress (all of which are protected) it has a low level of biodiversity. We know this because we have had it surveyed by an expert ecologist.

This survey has shown that there are absolutely [no] mammals living here. No badgers, foxes, bats, deer or hedgehogs as the promoter of the recent petition would have you believe or, in fact, any protected species.

Nature needs nurturing. Unfortunately, this site been left unkempt for over 60 years! Whilst many of us see an abundance of greenery as a good thing, here the result of our survey has shown that due to neglect the area has become overrun by invasive species which are undermining the quality of the soil and preventing daylight to the understorey, thereby killing of what remains of the indigenous habitat.

We all know that wildlife needs help to flourish in urban environments. That is why the scheme that we will bring forward will guarantee a habitat management scheme supervised by experts. This will cover 70% of the site with the remainder forming the garden for the new home.

Gardens themselves are good for nature of course. The RHS research has shown that levels of biodiversity are just as high in cultivated gardens and that is why Hadley Green generally benefits from having so many. Even with a new home here built within the site, we will provide a 10% increase in biodiversity!

Indeed, according to the Council’s Conservation Area Appraisal a quarter of Monken Hadley is in residential use, typically large houses, in substantial plots with cultivated gardens. So I question why would any supporter of the Barnet Society want to oppose a plan for scheme which so typifies the area.

Why would anyone support the continuation of neglect of an area where the habitat and protected trees are being slowly eroded by invasive species?

I would also like to point out that the beneficiaries of this proposal will be Barnet residents. That is because the two landowners promoting it are, the Council and the Barnet Recreational Trust. The latter is a local charity which in the last five years has financially supported almost twenty different local organisations including the Parish of Monken Hadley where it has recently donated £110,000 toward the re-building of the Church Hall. The proceeds flowing from this project would similarly be invested.

Finally, I would like to thank all those who attended our public consultation last week. I was grateful to be able to have the opportunity of providing the evidence behind the claims we have made in relation to the project. If anyone who was not able to attend would like to see the material, please do not hesitate to let me know.

Footnote I would also like to put the record straight as regards that my option deal is with Barnet Estates and not with Barnet Homes.

Posted on by — 2 Comments

Judgment Day for High Barnet Place

UPDATE 2 DECEMBER 2025 Back in September, the Barnet Society submitted a 64-page critique of the planning application for 283 flats on High Barnet Station car park. The application will be decided by the Strategic Planning Committee at 7:00pm on Monday 8 December.

You can find our full submission here (dated 17 November). 802 objections have been received by the Council and only 104 ‘supports’. Strangely, many ‘supporters’ of the application show no knowledge of the site and have been canvassed by an organisation called Just Build Homes.

Despite the unambiguous proof of local opposition to this application, the Planning Officer is recommending its approval. The Council is committed to delivery of new housing and its Planning Committee could accept the recommendation. If it refuses permission, the developer is likely to appeal against the decision.

Alongside Barnet Residents Association we stand ready to speak at the meeting. If you care about the outcome, you can attend the meeting at Hendon Town Hall or watch via video.

Since the original application, Places for London have submitted numerous amendments and clarifications, which they claim respond to consultation feedback.

The design amendments are mostly minor changes to the appearance and internal layout of the buildings. Their height and footprint are unaltered. Misleading errors in key views have not been corrected. The Barnet Society’s extensive criticisms have been ignored.

High among our concerns is the almost complete lack of improvements to accessibility and safety for both residents and users of the station – indeed their worsening through loss of the car park.

We are also convinced that the site that should never have been considered suitable for 1,000 new residents. The resulting excessive density and poor design – and the operational difficulties that will beset tube users, residents and the public, commercial and emergency services trying to serve them – risk repeating the mistakes of postwar housing estates. That would be to the lasting cost of the community, Council and the identity and character of Chipping Barnet.

Posted on by — 4 Comments

Protecting green spaces – how serious are our politicians?

View of Christchurch spinney in early autumn

This peaceful spinney in Christchurch Lane is a haven of wildlife less than 200 metres from Barnet High Street – but it’s threatened by new building. How can that be?

Barnet Council declared a Climate and Biodiversity Emergency in 2022. Its recently-adopted Local Plan contains policies and supplementary planning documents specifically to protect green spaces of all kinds.

Mayor Khan has similar planning policies and is currently consulting on London’s first Nature Recovery Plan (LNRS) to reverse biodiversity loss. Surely the spinney’s future is safe?

Worryingly, the answer is no.

Last year the Council authorised the sale of part of the spinney that it owns for £430,000, subject to the buyer obtaining planning consent. Existing covenants on the land restrict development to private residential use. A planning application is expected before long.

The site is mainly well-established woodland with several Tree Preservation Orders but would benefit from sensitive management. Although small in area (0.438 hectare / 1 acre), its ecological value is great because it provides a vital undisturbed ‘green corridor’ for the transit of insects, animals and flying creatures between the Old Fold Manor golf course and Hadley Green, both of which are in the Green Belt.

Local resident Marianne Nix says ‘The spinney is a rich and biodiverse habitat, regularly visited by badgers, foxes, muntjac deer, bats and hedgehogs as well as birds on red and amber conservation list 5.’ Above and below are some of her recent photographs.

The spinney’s location within the Monken Hadley Conservation Area should provide it with statutory protection. But the Barnet Society knows from bitter experience over the Whalebones Estate housing development that the Council can override Conservation Area status if it decides that development would be ‘less than harmful’.

The plan above is based on an interactive map that is a key component of the draft London LNRS. It shows Areas of Particular Importance for Biodiversity (such as Hadley Green – purple on the plan) and Areas that Could Become of Particular Importance (such as Old Fold Manor golf course – sage green on plan).

On it is marked Christchurch spinney, highlighting its value of as a strategic link between the golf course and green. Unfortunately, the spinney itself is not designated in the LNRS.

Mayor Khan’s draft explains the purpose of an LNRS, identifies six overarching priorities for London and describes in impressive detail the range of landscape characteristics and wildlife species that deserve protection. It’s a welcome framework for the guidance of future development across London.

Development of the LNRS has enabled Council Biodiversity Officers to check the existing data. It turned out that much was inaccurate, out of date, incorrect or non-existent. It has now been updated and significant effort has gone into identifying potential sites of particular importance and for taking action. So thanks to the LNRS, we now have a better baseline for our local nature.

There’ll be a chance to suggest new locations such as Christchurch spinney when the LNRS is next reviewed, which will take place every three to 10 years (the government will advise on the timeframe). Until then, the Council’s duty is to protect the spinney.

In 2022, Barnet Labour’s Green Manifesto promised to ‘Protect ALL existing green spaces in the Borough’. In the May 2026 local election Barnet voters will be able to hold Councillors to account.

You can comment on the draft LNRS here. The deadline is Wednesday 29 October 2025.

Below: LNRS map extract showing designated areas in Chipping Barnet parliamentary constituency

Posted on by — 6 Comments

Last chance to have your say on Barnet Heights

… or High Barnet Place, as the development proposed next to High Barnet Station is officially called (see above). But Barnet Heights would be a more accurate description of 283 flats over the whole of the present car park in blocks of 5 to 11 storeys high.

Whichever, it’s the most serious threat to Chipping Barnet’s character and functioning in decades. And Friday 19 September is the deadline for public comments on the planning application.

The Barnet Society strongly opposes the proposals, and urges you to do so too.

Our key reasons for objecting strongly to the current planning application are because:

  • It breaches many policies in Barnet’s recently-adopted Local Plan.
  • It would create homes of unacceptably poor safety and quality in terms of layout, detailed design and amenity.
  • It would be no more accessible – and probably less safe – than the present site.
  • Contrary to the developers’ claims, it would be unsustainable by many environmental standards.
  • It would irreparably harm the identity of the neighbourhood, nearby and from afar.
  • No compensating benefits of significance are offered in terms of transport connectivity or new/improved facilities to the existing community.

We’re currently finalising a full justification of our objections. A draft summary of them can be found here.

The Society would welcome a development that combined a genuine improvement to the public realm and public transport connectivity alongside well-designed homes at a sympathetic scale of development. But this application is not that.

As I write, over 300 objections have been posted on the Council’s planning portal – impressive, but we need more.

In March Dan Tomlinson MP’s position was neutral, but his current stance has not yet been made known. Former Chipping Barnet MP Theresa Villiers has submitted an objection.

Curiously, of the 26 supporters of the scheme, hardly any actually live in Chipping Barnet.

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 (cc sam.gerstein@barnet.gov.uk); or
  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 ref. no. (25/2671/FUL) clearly at the top
  • the site address (High Barnet Underground Station, Station Approach, Barnet EN5 5RP) and
  • your name, address and postcode.

Sending a copy of your comments to our MP dan.tomlinson.mp@parliament.uk and to your local Councillors will increase the effectiveness of your objection.

Posted on by — 2 Comments

Chipping Barnet MP promoted to Treasury junior minister – a chance to demonstrate his commitment to tackling economic insecurity

A little over a year after being elected Labour MP for Chipping Barnet, Dan Tomlinson has been promoted to become a junior minister at the Treasury.

In a reshuffle announced by the Prime Minister on the day MPs returned to Westminster, Mr Tomlinson was appointed Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury.

His promotion from the backbenches to assist in the development of Labour policies to rebuild the economy reflects his previous experience as an economist with think-tanks working on ways to boost living standards and tackle poverty.

For the past year Mr Tomlinson – seen above when campaigning against the closure of High Barnet post office – has been one of Sir Keir Starmer’s backbench champions of economic growth.

His appointment to the ministerial ranks followed in the wake of the promotion of Darren Jones who was moved from the Treasury to a new cabinet post of Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister.

Mr Jones, who was Chief Secretary to the Treasury, has been replaced by James Murray, previously the Exchequer Secretary – the post now taken by Mr Tomlinson.

In the general election in July last year, Mr Tomlinson, at the age of 31, defeated the long-standing Conservative MP, Theresa Villiers (who was made a Dame Commander in Rishi Sunak’s resignation honours) and he became Chipping Barnet’s first Labour MP for over 70 years.  

He broke the Conservatives’ hold on what had been one of their safest seats and followed in the steps of an illustrious Labour predecessor Stephen Taylor MP, who won the newly created constituency of Barnet in the 1945 Labour landslide and who became an influential adviser on the creation of the National Health Service.

After studying philosophy, politics and economics at Oxford University, Mr Tomlinson joined the Treasury and moved to the Resolution Foundation in 2015 becoming a senior economist on housing, employment, public spending and living standards.

In 2022, he joined the Joseph Rowntree Foundation as principal policy adviser leading their research and advice on aspects of economic insecurity.

From 2018 to 2022, he served as a councillor in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets.

After being elected to Westminster, he was listed as one of eight newly-elected Labour MPs who would become advocates on the need to improve social housing – a cause which he has told his constituents was influenced by his own childhood experiences, having grown up on free school meals and having been homeless for a time as a child.

From the start, he indicated that he was determined to use his expertise to work with Keir Starmer, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves, to tackle the cost- of-living crisis – and after only 14 months as an MP, he has the chance to put his experience to the test.

Posted on by — 6 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.

Above: proposed view from King George’s Fields

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 — 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 — 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 — 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

Barnet’s biggest environmental challenge?

In Barnet, the biggest cause of climate change is housing. Homes emit around 50% of the carbon released in our borough. Radically reducing those emissions by upgrading the environmental performance of our homes is the most urgent and useful thing that many of us can do. It will also generate employment, substantially reduce our energy bills and – done properly – improve our health.

Over two-thirds of Barnet’s housing stock was built before 1944, and over 85% of it is likely still to exist in 2050. Today, the median Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) rating of existing homes in Chipping Barnet is only about 56%. Retrofitting them is therefore critical to achieving Net Zero.

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!

The technical and aesthetic challenges of bringing old houses up to modern standards mustn’t be under-estimated. It’s also financially challenging – but will only get more expensive the longer we delay. To illustrate the challenges – and to indicate some ways in which they can be met – this and my next web post will look at a couple of examples in Barnet.

The first is an attractive Arts & Crafts house that is on Barnet’s Local Heritage List, but in need of repair and improvement to reduce its energy consumption.

The second, which I’ll look at in my next post, is a more typical semi-detached house that has just been radically upgraded by a local architect, and which was opened to the public as part of London Open House earlier this month.
Nos. 26 & 27 Manor Road in Chipping Barnet is a pair of semi-detached houses dating from about 1906. The architect isn’t recorded, but the design shows the influence of Lutyens and Voysey. No.27 was the home of Peter and Doreen Willcocks, who were stalwarts of the Barnet Society and Barnet Local History Society. They moved in 60 years ago and the house is still occupied by family.

The future of both houses is uncertain. Being on the Local List they deserve careful conservation, but they’re increasingly expensive to maintain.

No.27 has been well looked-after – not surprisingly, since Peter was a national expert on the Building Regulations. But also unsurprisingly, it is showing signs of age. Fortunately its underlying structure seems generally sound and repairs should not be too difficult. What can and should be done to bring it somewhere near Net Zero standards without losing its beautifully crafted details?

Below are listed some improvements that could be made here, and to many other Barnet houses of similar vintage. However they are purely indicative and no substitute, it must be stressed, for a full survey and environmental diagnosis by a qualified professional.
Southerly-facing parts of the roof could be fitted with photovoltaic (PV) panels to generate solar energy. Although not applicable in the case of No.27, note that it may not be permissible to fit PVs on roofs in a Conservation Area.

Guttering and drains are of cast iron with an ornate hopper-head. They should be kept if possible, or replaced with cast aluminium to similar profiles.

The rough-cast render is essential to No.27’s character. It may need repair or partial replacement, but that must be done with lime mortar to enable the brickwork behind to breathe. In unobtrusive places, it could be replaced with new external insulation finished with a thinner render to match the original in texture and colour. But this would need to be 50-100 mm thick which would have an impact on door and window reveals and cills, and require close-fitting eaves, gutters, downpipes and soil and waste pipework to be adjusted. Where internal insulation can be provided without unacceptable disturbance, all external walls can benefit from condensation-safe internal insulation, e.g. patent render with cork granules and lime skim-coat finish.

External and internal doors and frames are of solid wood with panels, often with their original ironmongery and Classical canopies or cornices above. The external doors would need draught-proofing.

The original lead-paned windows with their ornamental fasteners remain intact. Secondary glazing was installed remarkably discreetly by Peter Willcocks nearly 50 years ago: compare the original living room windows (above middle R) with the secondary-glazed ones in the kitchen (above far R). Today a triple-glazed unit would be considered.‘Slimlite’ and similar thin double-glazing units are available, some fitting into the traditional shallow glazing rebates. They are more expensive than normal double-glazed units but more elegant than secondary glazing.

Much of the ground floor is of timber boards, still in good condition. Underfloor insulation could be inserted between the floor joists, though care is required to retain, clear, and possibly increase the number of sub-floor vent bricks/gratings to ensure a through-flow of fresh air.

Several fireplaces survive, one with a magnificent Classical mantelpiece and surround. Most have been blocked up but include ventilation for their flues. The existing tall chimneys are features of the roof and in fair condition. They should be retained and could form part of a new mechanically controlled ventilation system with heat recovery.

The roof spaces have been partly converted for storage and other use, but the existing structure – and even the vertical sliding shutters to the gable ventilator slits – remain in fair condition. The insulation should be greatly increased, however, and air leakage and condensation eliminated.

The existing gas central heating boiler and radiators have served well for decades, but the boiler will have to replaced before long by some new source – or combination of sources –  of renewable energy. One could be solar panels (mentioned above). Air-source heat pumps (ASHPs) are increasingly being used, though their effectiveness depends on high levels of thermal insulation and airtightness, and often on larger and/or more efficient radiators. Whilst gas and oil-fuelled boilers continue in use, solar water-heating from a roof-mounted solar panel is a good way of mitigating fuel costs. This entails replacement of the standard hot-water storage cylinder with a well-insulated calorifier containing an additional heating coil connected to the solar panel.

The All-Party Parliamentary Group for Healthy Homes and Buildings points out that the introduction of energy efficiency measures must go hand-in-hand with the introduction of appropriate mechanical ventilation that can exchange toxic indoor air with fresh air, and with design measures that improve the overall comfort and wellbeing of all occupants.

To ensure both air quality and economical running, a building energy management system (BEMS) will be needed. But it must be properly installed, calibrated, commissioned and maintained.

Materials and workmanship must also be of appropriate quality. As well as looking right, the results must not impair the environmental performance of the building, for example by creating condensation and mould.

The suggestions above only scratch the surface. It’s vital to understand the construction of a house before specifying solutions, but getting good advice isn’t easy.

As Barnet Society member and sustainability expert Dave McCormick notes, ‘High energy prices might be persuading more people to consider green home improvements, but knowing where to begin is an issue for many.’ Or as Marianne Nix, another Society member and house-owner keen to follow best practice, puts it, ‘Finding suitable builders is like looking for a needle in a haystack. And I’m not sure I know what the needle looks like!’

Looking for that needle – and for expert advisers, designers, builders and funding – will be addressed in my next post.

I’m most grateful to Alan Johnson, Richard Kay and Dave McCormick for their advice on this article.

Posted on by

The Spires developers must up their design game – and drop their building heights

The Barnet Society’s Planning & Environment Committee has studied closely the latest design proposals exhibited at The Spires on 12 & 15 April. This is a once-in-a-generation chance to revitalise our town centre, but it risks being wasted.

Frankly, we’re disappointed. Back in December last year, we responded to the initial proposals for The Spires with numerous constructive suggestions and cautionary comments. Over three months later, few of them seem to have been regarded.

The Society’s fundamental position is that we could accept around 250 flats if the result would be a real improvement on the present Spires. That would include a wider range of retail and other uses, a more attractive place to shop and hang out, and better bus/car drop-off and pick-up arrangements (amongst other things).

Unfortunately, the current scheme doesn’t seem to offer such improvements. Benefits to the public realm are at best vague or limited, and in some cases the proposals would be detrimental. Basic information on the new homes, transport, sustainability and the visual impact on neighbours and conservation areas is lacking, but is essential if the developers are to get community support.

We’ve told them our reasons for disappointment – and if you care for the future of our town, please submit your own comments. There’s no deadline, but the sooner you do so the better. You can view the exhibition boards here. Then

The Society has four particular concerns:

Building height

The proposed 5 & 6-storey blocks along the south side of Spires Walk would overshadow the precinct to a completely unacceptable degree. We are also very concerned about the visual impact of the 4, 5 & 6 storeys proposed north of the Spires Walk, on the multi-storey car park and behind Chipping Close, and would have to see verified visualisations from key view-points before commenting further.

Transport

No attempt has been made to improve the present unsatisfactory – and sometimes hazardous – arrangements for buses, car drop-off or pick-up and pedestrian crossing. The scheme also depends on highly optimistic assumptions about car parking demand. Credible transport studies must be made available.

Housing

The almost complete absence of plans, sections and other information about this major component of the scheme is astonishing, and prevents us adding to the numerous comments we made on the subject in our submission last year. We should point out that compliance with the London Mayoral and Barnet Council housing design standards will be essential, not simply the Nationally Described Space Standards referenced on the exhibition boards.

Trading continuity

The lack of information about phasing of building works and temporary decanting of existing businesses, most of which are essential for the regeneration of the town centre, is worrying.

We also have comments on other points:

Permeability

New public pedestrian connections between the development and Bruce Road, and High Street (via the alley between Nos.131 & 133) are desirable.

Mix of uses

We like the idea of a ‘varied offer of retail, F&B, leisure and cultural’ and ‘active community & retail space fronting onto the High Street’ (or is that meant to mean St Albans Road?), but need more detail. ‘Changing places’ and able-bodied public conveniences should also be provided.

Market

We welcome the extra space proposed for the market if demand increases.

Spires Walk

The width between the proposed 5 & 6-storey slabs appears little wider than the smaller of the existing courtyards, and much less than the 21 metres recommended for residential visual and aural privacy. As well as its almost continuous overshadowing (mentioned above), we regret the removal of most of the existing protection from rain.

A further observation: this design would remove the variety and element of surprise that gives the present precinct much of its character. That would be replaced by a long, straight vista focusing the westward gaze on…the anticlimax of the car park entrance. A more inspired townscape gesture is called for.

Green space

The plans indicate plenty of greenery, which would be welcome, but according to the exhibition panels only 80 sq.m. is additional, which seems meagre for a site of this size. Does it include the ‘communal garden’ and its adjacent new greenery? Who would be able to access it, and how would it be kept secure?

Play space

Provision for children’s play is equally ambiguous. We are promised improvement to the green to create a ‘playable’ space. But which green is meant: the new ‘communal garden’ or the Stapylton Road pocket park (which is outside the development site)? And would it be a purpose-designed play area?

Sustainability

The environmental measures offered are heading in right direction, but are ad hoc and unambitious. A project of this size is an opportunity for a more holistic and integrated scheme. Robust assurances on air quality will also be needed, during and after construction.

Unless the development team up their design game – and drop their building heights – the impression that they are prioritising residential units and private profit over public benefit will be unavoidable.

Posted on by — 1 Comment

Healthier homes – what can Barnet residents do?

Despite the pace of new building in Barnet, most of our existing homes fall well below the environmental standards we need to meet to avoid climate catastrophe. At last week’s Barnet Society debate on Better Homes for Barnet, Dave McCormick of Barnet Friends of the Earth gave advice on what residents can do to save energy, minimise waste and make Barnet more sustainable. Below is a summary of Dave’s presentation.

We can probably all agree that we want new housing developments to be “healthy homes”, but are our existing homes healthy?

Homes in Barnet are the source of 48% of carbon emissions and most of the existing housing stock was built in the last century when climate change and biodiversity loss were less prominent issues. Unhealthy homes are homes that can harm our health and the environment – making our homes healthier can lead to healthier people, communities, and nature. So, what are the issues and what can we do?

Barnet is within a water-stressed region of the UK as we are extracting water from our environment faster than nature is replenishing our water resources. To avoid water shortages our water companies need to reduce leaks from pipes and we need to reduce the amount of water we each use per day by about a third. Shorter showers, turning off the tap when brushing teeth, using a bucket rather than a hose when washing the car are all simple things that we can do to reduce consumption. Fixing dripping taps and leaky loos takes a bit more effort and costs some money but can make a big difference. And when legislation for water labelling is finally introduced, we will be able to make better informed decisions about what products we buy.

Over 70% of our homes have gas central heating – a major source of emissions. We need legislation to make it easier to expand local renewable community energy, and help to change how we heat our homes. While we wait for this, we can improve insulation, turn down the thermostat and turn off radiators in unused rooms. All will help reduce our energy bills and our emissions.

Cooking on gas hobs contributes to carbon emissions and indoor air pollution that can harm our health. Switching to induction electric hobs is a good solution but meanwhile boil water in a kettle then put it into a saucepan for cooking and use saucepan lids to reduce gas use. When cooking, make sure the kitchen is well ventilated to help disperse pollution.

If we manage to stop our homes leaking heat we then have to ensure that lack of ventilation doesn’t lead to mould which can damage our health. Indoor air quality is becoming a growing area of concern.

Our households create a lot of waste and in Barnet, less than 30% of it is currently reused, recycled or composted. Rather than focusing on more frequent waste collection, the starting point should be to reduce the amount of waste and compost as much as possible at home (hot composters are good for this).

We all buy a lot of stuff – buying less can help reduce waste and reduce the emissions and water used in making the things we buy.

Food production is a significant source of emissions and freshwater use. Halving our meat and dairy consumption can cut agriculture emissions by between 20-50%. A vegan diet isn’t for everyone but we could all try to eat less meat, eat seasonable local produced food and grow our what we can in our gardens or windowsills.

There is lots we can do at home. We can also encourage others to act and support (and ask our councillors and politicians to support) the following initiatives that are aiming to address the issues around Healthy Homes:

The Healthy Homes Act,  Local Electricity Bill,  United for Warmer Homes (a Friends of the Earth initiative with a local petition).

We face a climate and biodiversity crisis and across our Borough, there are many volunteer groups trying to inspire and educate residents to take simple steps to make our homes healthier, reduce emissions, consume less and protect and enhance nature.

Community gardening, such as Incredible Edible in New Barnet, helps people learn about growing food and plants, composting and bug hotels in a social setting that improves well-being. Projects to plant pollinator bulbs and seeds help improve local biodiversity and Goodgym helps people get fit while doing good.

Community events such as “eco-show and tell” share ideas and get people thinking about what sustainability means for Barnet. This year, East Finchley Community Festival in Cherry Tree Wood aims to replace use of diesel generators with green alternatives – something other parts of Barnet could learn from.

Community action can make a big difference to making our homes, our communities and nature healthier. To succeed, whether it is designing and building new homes or maintaining and improving existing homes, sustainability needs to be at the heart of all we do.

How can we put this into action in Chipping Barnet?

Posted on by — 3 Comments

Typical – wait ages for a decent modern housing scheme, and two come along at once!

After years of dereliction, Barnet Homes have published proposals for sites in Moxon Street and Whitings Road for public consultation. The designs are better than previous schemes for the same sites approved several years ago, but never built. They’re also more imaginative and sensitive than almost any the Barnet Society has seen for a long time. We support them, and hope you will too.

Barnet Homes got the latest plans off to a good start by arranging early public consultations, well before the planning applications are due to be submitted in spring, and by appointing good and experienced design consultants.

Both design teams are led by Peter Barber Architects, who have an excellent record of inserting attractive housing on awkward urban sites. In Barnet they’ve designed the modest Brent Place off Mays Lane; Edgewood Mews, Barnet’s answer to the Byker wall, alongside the North Circular; and the dramatic Pegasus Court in Colindale. The landscape designers for both projects are Staton Cohen, a practice based in Barnet Vale.

Together, the two schemes will offer 50% market and 50% affordable housing, but the mix will on each will be different, as will be the size of units and the balance of flats and houses with gardens.

The Whitings Road site (above) is relatively straightforward, the main planning requirement being to avoid overlooking of adjoining neighbours and Whitings Hill Primary School. The plan does this by clustering 35 homes, mainly 3 & 4-bed houses up to three storeys high with gardens, around a communal green.

The Moxon Street site (above) is more complicated. Half of it is within the Wood Street Conservation Area and it adjoins a Grade II Listed Georgian house. On Moxon Street, the former Checkalows building will be retained and extended, and a new building in similar style will fill the gap next to the listed house. The ground floors will provide small commercial premises with three flats above. Behind Moxon Street, 18 more 1 & 2-bed units will form an L-shaped mews, no higher than two storeys, linking to Tapster Street.

As usual with Peter Barber, the buildings are cleverly designed to maximise accommodation but minimise intrusion into their neighbourhoods. The predominant material is traditional brick, but the facades have a variety of windows and rooflines to provide individuality.

We made encouraging comments on the initial proposals in December. In the light of public comments, modifications have been made and a second round of public consultation is currently being held on both schemes. Only slight amendments have been made at Whitings Road, but at Moxon Street the plans have been developed to meet some criticisms.

We have only minor concerns at this stage. At Moxon Street, using three types of brick will look too ‘busy’; and while the widely differing window sizes and shapes are fun, they might quickly seem dated. At both sites, the flat roofs and varied rooflines are visually interesting but tricky to keep weatherproof. The units are mostly quite small with some strange room layouts. Achieving adequate privacy, daylight and private amenity space will be challenging. The net-zero ambition is admirable, but provision of photovoltaics, air-source heat pumps and a renewable energy strategy is unclear. But these can be sorted out by designers of this calibre.

The deadline for public comments on Moxon Street is Wednesday 15 February, and for Whitings Road Wednesday 22 February. Details can be found here.

If you’re excited by housing schemes like these – or if you dislike them – come and say so at the Barnet Society’s public meeting on Tuesday evening 21 February. Our debate on Better housing for Barnet will be at The Bull theatre, 68 High Street.

Come and ask questions – and suggest solutions – to our panel of speakers which includes

  • Ross Houston, housing lead for Barnet Council
  • Dave McCormick, Friends of the Earth
  • Simon Kaufman & Russell Curtis, local architects with housing expertise

Doors will open for refreshments at 7:00pm and the meeting will be from 7:30 to 9:15pm. Admission: members – free; non-members – £5 donation (or why not join instead?).

Posted on by

Barnet open spaces exemplify the importance of the Green Belt

These are critical times for London’s Green Belt. But Barnet still has many open spaces where the illusion of countryside is remarkably unspoiled. Eight of them – all in Totteridge or Mill Hill – are on new videos that you can view on the website of the London Green Belt Council (LGBC).

That they survive at all is partly thanks to the Barnet Society’s efforts over eight decades. In 1945 it was founded to save the fields around Chipping Barnet from being built over for 40,000 houses. We’re longstanding members of the LGBC, which helps us fight inappropriate developments in the Green Belt – often (though not always) successfully.

In these crucial days when Liz Truss and her new cabinet have yet to confirm their policies towards the Green Belt and house-building targets, the LGBC needs to get its messages across more effectively. It has around 100 member organisations, but needs more members and a higher profile.

The videos are intended to raise the awareness of the public and government and recruit new supporters. In them, LGBC Chair Richard Knox-Johnston explains why retaining the Metropolitan Green Belt is so vital now for the health of both the environment and each of us. He speaks with enthusiasm and authority reminiscent of Richard Attenborough.

In Richard’s introductory clip, he says that his passion for the subject was ignited half a century ago when, as a young Bromley councillor, he represented a ward that was largely Green Belt. In the subsequent clips, he identifies key reasons for its protection:

  • Safeguarding our mental health
  • Stopping urban sprawl
  • Securing food supply
  • Providing opportunities for leisure, recreation and sports
  • Enhancing biodiversity

He concludes by demolishing the fallacy that new housing in the Green Belt is affordable.

Richard’s messages are especially urgent today, when 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). ‘Safe Under Us’?. That’s huge: the equivalent of the combined area of the London Boroughs of Barnet, Camden and Enfield – or 60 Hampstead Heaths. You can read about the threat here.

The Green Belt is not referred to in the government’s Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (LURB), which is working its way through Parliament. Although it’s theoretically protected by national and local government policies, ‘Safe Under Us’? shows how ineffective they are. There are also frustrating inconsistencies between government and council policies and decisions made by the Planning Inspectorate about new developments. The LURB is our best hope of bringing coherence to the planning system and reinforcing protection of the Green Belt – but it has worrying flaws and omissions that the Society, LGBC and our MP Theresa Villiers are lobbying to remove.

Enjoy the view video clips of Barnet’s eight lovely Green Belt locations without leaving your home – but even better, make the effort (if you are able) to walk them yourself!

The filming went like a midsummer dream. On a perfect day (before the worst of last summer’s heatwave) I drove our small crew around the locations. Richard spoke unscripted and needed very few retakes. The videos were shot, recorded and edited most professionally by Jayd Kent of Simply Graphics.

And we found time for a nice lunch at Finchley Nurseries – in Barnet’s Green Belt, naturally.

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

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

Alston Road threatened by new permitted development apartment block blight

Recent years have seen a wave of roof extensions across Barnet, usually providing extra space for existing homes. Richard Court in Alston Road (above) exemplifies a new variant of Permitted Development introduced by the government last year. You have until Thursday 23 December to oppose it, and below we tell you how to do so. 

Continue reading Alston Road threatened by new permitted development apartment block blight

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

Full house at Barnet homeless night shelter

Every Sunday this winter St Mark’s Church, Barnet Vale, becomes a night shelter for the homeless – “our contribution to helping the weakest”, says the Vicar, the Reverend Tristan Chapman.

Continue reading Full house at Barnet homeless night shelter

Posted on by — 6 Comments

Building Threat on Potters Bar & South Mimms Green Belt

Hertsmere Council is consulting on the possibility of building up to 2,620 new homes plus new places of work between Wrotham Park and Potters Bar, westwards as far as South Mimms and eastwards beyond M25 junction 24. This would have a huge impact on our Green Belt.

Continue reading Building Threat on Potters Bar & South Mimms Green Belt

Posted on by

Ensuring historic footpaths are preserved

Efforts are underway to identify and map the many alleyways and footpaths that add so much to the local landscape and help make High Barnet such an attractive place to live.

Continue reading Ensuring historic footpaths are preserved

Posted on by

Plea to save historic plaque

Barnet’s pioneering role in the development of care for young people suffering from multiple sclerosis has one lasting memento – a plaque commemorating the opening of the Marie Foster Centre by the Duchess of Gloucester in November 1973.

Continue reading Plea to save historic plaque

Posted on by

Opportunities for Barnet’s challenged youngsters

Hands-on experience in a great variety of trades, sports and occupations was all part of a careers day organised at the Pavilion School, in Chandos Avenue,Whetstone, which provides support and education for Barnet children who are outside mainstream education.

Continue reading Opportunities for Barnet’s challenged youngsters