Tag: development

Posted on by — 20 Comments

Transport for London bans flats protest rally outside High Barnet station – but across the road residents launch their “New Battle of Barnet”

A mass protest against plans for five high-rise blocks of flats on the car park at High Barnet tube station attracted over 250 residents who were greeted with toots of support from the horns of passing motorists.

London Transport moved swiftly to warn of prosecutions if protestors gathered around the station entrance, so the rally was switched to the other side of Barnet Hill.

Fifteen posters warning of the consequences of any “unauthorised protests or gathering or loitering” had been fixed to walls and fences all around the lower entrance.

A posse of four members of London Underground staff stood at the station forecourt and were on hand in case of any breach of Transport for London byelaws.

Despite the ban on meeting in the area around the station’s lower entrance, the groups organising the protest – Barnet Society, Barnet Residents Association and Hands Off high Barnet – were determined to show the strength of opposition to a redevelopment they argue is the “wrong scheme, in the wrong place”.

As supporters were marshalled back up the slope of the station entrance to cross the road to the grassy bank on the opposite side of Barnet Hill, there were muttered protests at what was seen as TfL’s high-handed approach in banning a rally on their land.

In particular, the wording of the notices – suggesting their presence might lead to prosecutions – led some residents to complain that TfL seemed to be turning High Barnet into a police state where free speech and protest were being suppressed.

While remaining friendly and approachable, the four London Underground staff on duty outside the station entrance were a clear indication that TfL meant business – the rally had apparently been banned on grounds of health and safety.

As the crowd of protestors continued to grow in size – approaching 250 people or more on some estimates – the organisers said they were delighted by the turn out.

Four thousand leaflets had been distributed calling for support, reminding residents they had until Friday 19 September to register their objections with Barnet Council.

Gordon Massey, who analysed the scheme on behalf of Barnet Residents Association, told the crowd they had to recognise that TfL – through its subsidiary Places for London – was determined to build as many homes as possible on spare land at London Underground stations.

“283 flats on this site are far too many and the design of them is absolutely dreadful. Just listen to the noise from the road and think what it will be like living there.”

He praised the joint effort there had been with the Barnet Society whose planning and environment spokesman Robin Bishop said the society’s team approach would allow them to present Barnet Council with “a substantial submission” detailing the faults in the scheme.

As the rally continued, hand-made posters held up by the grandchildren of Jane Ouseley (far left) amused passing motorists who tooted their horns in support of the message: “No tower blocks in High Barnet”.

Summing up the defiance of the crowd was a slogan on one of the posters: “The new Battle of Barnet”.

Another poster on the roadside at the entrance to the station left passers-by in no doubt about what the protest was all about.

Ken Rowland, chair of the residents’ association, said the size of the crowd showed why residents felt so strongly about an “appalling and monstrous” development.

“We need to stop this…the children living in homes in these blocks will not be able to open the windows…they will be overlooking an electricity sub station and railway tracks, and it is not the appropriate place for a development of this size.”

Kim Ambridge, a founder member of Hands-Off High Barnet which fought successfully against a 2019 plan – later withdrawn – for high-rise flats, deplored the loss of the station car park.

Her concern was reinforced by Barnet Vale Councillor David Longstaff who thought that by building over a well-lit car park, TfL was failing to acknowledge the fears of women arriving at the High Barnet station late at night.

At the end of the rally the crowd showed their contempt for TfL’s ban on the protest outside the tube station by marching up the High Street to the parish church of St John the Baptist.

Mass protest rally against tower blocks of flats at High Barnet tube station goes ahead despite Transport for London ban on gatherings outside the station entrance

A final photo-opportunity underlined another message of from the rally – that the proposed 11-storey block of flats at the station would break the historic skyline of High Barnet and compete with the commanding presence of the church tower.

Posted on by

Work to start soon on a new studio for Barnet Guild of Artists – a continuing legacy of Whalebones benefactor Gwyneth Cowing

Members of Barnet Guild of Artists are preparing for their 74th annual show in October – in what might become their final year in their unique and much-loved art studio.

Tucked away in the woods at Whalebones, off Wood Street, the timber framed studio was built by the late Miss Gwyneth Cowing who left it for the artists’ use.

The guild have been rebuilding their membership after a difficult few years following the cancellation of activities during the covid pandemic and uncertainty surrounding plans for the redevelopment of much of the Whalebones estate.

Helen Leake, the guild’s membership secretary – see above – says they will be very sorry to leave Miss Cowing’s original studio which holds so many happy memories for generations of local artists.

If all goes to plan the guild is due to move into a replacement studio towards the end of 2026 on a site in Wellhouse Lane, next to Well Cottage and directly opposite the bus terminus outside Barnet Hospital.

New premises for the artists are to be built by Hill Residential, and the Gwyneth Cowing Will Trust, which were granted planning permission last year to build 114 new houses on fields adjoining Whalebones House.

A lease on the proposed new building is about to be signed by the guild which has acquired charitable status given its enhanced responsibilities.

By moving into a new premises, with a much bigger art studio, full disabled access and modern facilities, the guild will have the opportunity to widen their appeal and work with other arts groups.

“We do want to engage much more with the wider community and our new premises will give us the chance to work with other organisations and arrange community sessions for local artists,” said Helen Leake.

The guild now has a membership of 128 artists and is appealing for a treasurer and new trustees to help with the administration.

Members are currently preparing for their annual exhibition to be staged again at the Wesley Hall during the last week of October.

Seen at work in the well-lit Whalebones studio – under the watchful eye of Gwyneth Cowing’s portrait on the wall – are from left to right, Helen Leake. Carole Wilson and Victoria Vickers.

Recent works completed by guild members are about to go on display at the Open Door Cafe at Christ Church in St Albans Road.

An ambitious project completed by guild members under the leadership of Toni Smith was the painting of a large mural on an external wall of Brunswick Park Primary and Nursey School in Osidge Lane.

The mural is of a tree and owls and the school’s colours.

One member who helped with the project was Mark Wiltshire, above.

Such was the size of the mural – measuring four metres by five metre – that scaffolding has to be erected to provide access.  

For more information on the guild’s activities see www.barnetguildofartists.com

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 — 1 Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on by — 8 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on by

Enfield flood drainage work helping to create a wetland habitat in woodland on Monken Hadley Common

Reeds and other wetland grasses and flowers have been planted along the edges of flood relief drainage work in Hadley Woods which has been carried out by Enfield Council with the help of volunteers from Monken Hadley Common Trust.

New pipework and other excavations are designed to end flash flooding in Parkgate Avenue, off Camlet Way, and improve badly drained marsh land close by in the woods which is often inaccessible in wet winter weather.

Plans were first drawn up in 2018 to relieve flooding in nearby houses.

After discussions with the Common Trust and Barnet Council, Enfield gave the go ahead for the construction of a new surface water drainpipe under the footpath that leads to the common at the junction of Parkgate Avenue and Crescent.

A wetland cell – or holding pond – has been created along with a water course through the woods which connects up to Green Brook and leads on to the stream that runs close to Jack’s Lake.

Footpaths around the area have been raised and laid out with wood chips so as to provide year-round access through the woods.

Michael Shorey, Enfield’s senior engineer in water courses, briefed volunteers before they set to work.

He explained that the aim of the scheme was to divert excess flood water through the new pipe under the footpath so that it entered the wet land cell and could then spill into a floodable landscaped wetland area reducing the flow into Green Brook.

Martin Jones (far right), a landscape architect with Enfield Council, said the importance of wetland and marginal aquatic planting was that it enhanced the water quality and added to biodiversity.

A range of pond-edge plants and wildflowers could be used in such locations and could tolerate periods of dry weather.

Roger De La Mare, co-curator of Monken Hadley Common, welcomed the completion of Enfield’s sustainable drainage scheme for Parkgate Avenue and the chance to carry out aquatic planting.

“We have had to lose several mature trees to make way for the pipework and the holding pond, but it has opened up an area which now has great potential, especially with the new raised footpaths.

“The tree canopy in much of the common does make it very dark below and that leaves us with a lot of brambles and holly, so a wetland area like this which has been laid out with aquatic plants is very appealing.”

A chance to take part in the scheme was an opportunity for Anna Colligan (left) to work with Enfield engineer Sarah Dillon to discover more about urban drainage schemes.

Anna is studying water management and the environment at Queen Mary University and was keen to volunteer.

Two Trust volunteers – Peter Davies (left) and David Littlewood – said they were pleased to see such a good turn out as it helped to get across the message that they wanted local people to get involved in looking after Monken Hadley Common.

Wetland habitat is being created within woodland on Monken Hadley Common after Enfield complete flood drainage work in Parkgate Avenue.

Nearby residents Maurice and Esther Kurland said the completion of the drainage scheme would be a great relief to some of their neighbours who had suffered from flash flooding in their properties.

“At long last there is now in place a drainage system to take the surplus water and we know how much that will be appreciated.

“Sorting out the drainage and building up the footpaths is a great improvement as this part of the common is often impassable in the winter because of all the mud. Hopefully that will all be sorted and the landscaping and planting will be a real improvement.”

Posted on by — 1 Comment

Amid East Barnet’s Edwardian houses is an amazing new self-build home – an ideal solution for downsizing to a smaller property

Being able to downsize to a smaller property – and a chance to stay in the same locality – is an aspiration shared by many of the established residents who have homes in and around High Barnet.

Kathryn Finlayson, a long-time resident of East Barnet, has pulled off this feat in style.

She has moved to a new, smaller, eco-friendly house which is next door to what had been a family home for 60 years, midway between Church Hill Road and Oakleigh Park Station.

She readily acknowledges her good fortune.

Kathryn did have a house to sell and space alongside large enough for a new architect-designed property complete with a bedroom, living area and the facilities she needs all on the ground floor, with two bedrooms above.

Her achievement, at the age of 83, has won national acclaim.

Her ambitious, high spec self-build won glowing praise from television presenter Kevin McCloud when he visited the house for his programme Grand Designs, which was followed by an expansive feature spread in House Beautiful.

Kathryn decided to see if she could downsize – and still live nearby – after the death of her husband Jon, who was a prominent East Barnet architect.

He designed St John’s United Reform Church at the corner of Somerset and Mowbray Roads, New Barnet, which was opened in 1968 and won a Civic Trust award.

“After Jon died in 2022, I decided with the family to see if we could build a new house on our plot next door.

“Our family house was too big for me, expensive to run, and needed a lot of improvement like a new boiler and electrics.

“Jon had built a music room on the plot, and I knew it was big enough for a house as developers searching Google earth were always wanting to buy it.”

Kathryn’s son introduced her to architect James Mak who came up with the idea of a living area and bedroom on one level with two bedrooms above for family members.

“His drawings and design for the house were lovely. It seemed like the dream solution as I would end up living in the same street in a new super-efficient, low-cost home.”

Built London Ltd started construction in September 2023 and Kathryn moved in in November last year.

“Here I am living in an ideal position close to so many friends, near the station, and just a short walk to East Barnet village and lots of bus routes, which will be so important if I have to give up my car.”

The construction costs of over £800,000 were met from the sale of the family home next door, a four-bedroom Edwardian house built in 1908.

Kathryn was rather pensive for a moment when asked whether the whole exercise had all been a little daunting for an 80-year-old.

“Yes, I would do it again. The new house is so well insulated, with triple-glazed windows, and the energy use is so much more efficient, and I am delighted with the result.

“Perhaps if I was starting out again, I would think carefully as to whether it should all have been to such high spec.

“But then I did want it all to be as eco-friendly as possible and to save what material we could from Jon’s music room.

“He put down a wonderful elm floor and that wood has been used again in fitting out the kitchen and in building a new bookcase so that gives me real pleasure.”

Down sizing to a smaller eco-friendly property has been achieved in style by long-standing East Barnet resident still in same street after 60 years.

“I suppose my experience is an example as to how it is possible to downsize if you are fortunate enough to already own a property which can be sold to finance a new build.”

“I never thought we would attract the attention of Grand Designs but appearing on television has really raised my profile.

“I am very amused by the number of people who now say, ‘I’ve seen you on tv’ and who like to stand and admire the house.”

Posted on by — 3 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on by — 20 Comments

Barnet Football Club’s supporters hoping their team’s top-of-the table position in the National League bodes well for a return to Underhill

Leaflets promoting Bring Barnet Back are being distributed across the town as the campaign hots up to persuade Barnet Council to approve plans for a new football stadium at Underhill.

If playing form is any guide, the club might be hoping for a warm welcome: Barnet is currently top of the National League and well placed for promotion to League Two of the English Football League.

Barnet haven’t been beaten in their last 21 National League fixtures. The Bees have now established an nine-point lead at the top of the table after their stunning mid-week 5-0 defeat of Yeovil Town at The Hive (4.3.2025).

However promising their performances on the pitch, the chances of Barnet playing again at Underhill are finely balanced.

The outcome depends on whether Barnet Council can be persuaded that there is a special case for a new stadium to be built within the Green Belt on playing fields at Underhill, close to the site of the original stadium which was demolished to make way for the Ark Pioneer Academy.

Opponents to the project, who are against the loss of Green Belt land and who fear traffic congestion generated by a new stadium, are rallying support around a petition which has attracted over 18,800 signatures.  

A strong case is being made for the new site on the grounds that careful landscaping would reduce the visual impact of the stadium, and that the environment and biodiversity would be greatly improved with extensive tree planting and the creation of a pond between the stadium and the Dollis Valley green walk.

Supporters hope Barnet Football Club's top of the table position boosts chances of return to Underhill

Seen above with an artist’s impression of the site are Sean McGrath (left) of consultants WSP and architect Manuel Nogueira of AndArchitects

Much of the emphasis in the club’s campaign to play again at Underhill is based on the economic impact.

Club chairman Tony Kleanthous has promised to finance the building of the new stadium, at a cost of around £14 million, and the estimate is that it should sustain the equivalent of 78 full-time jobs when taking into account all those working part time on match days.

On some estimates the return of the club could add £6 million a year to the Barnet economy, including £2.1 million from extra business for the town’s traders over a 23-week season.

If the application for a new stadium fails to get approval – and Barnet are denied a chance to rebuild the strong local support which they once enjoyed – there are stark warnings that the club’s long-term future is in grave doubt.

Representatives from community groups including the Barnet Society, Barnet Residents Association and Love Barnet have been advised that attendances at the club’s current base at The Hive Football Centre are not sufficient for long-term financial viability.

What was described as “a considerable financial shortfall” is having to be made up by Mr Kleanthous, the Barnet FC chairman and owner.

The Hive, midway between Edgware and Standmore, which is also owned by Mr Kleanthous, is a separate financial entity.

Its pitch, training facilities and diagnostic centre are used by a range of other clubs as well as Barnet and because of its proximity to Wembley it is often used as a training camp by visiting teams.

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

Currently the average gate is around 1,800. A move back to Underhill could increase that to around 3,500 given the strength of local support with the new stadium having a maximum capacity of 7,000 spectators.

Additional revenue from ticket sales could bring in an extra £500,000 a season and that could be matched by an equivalent amount in sponsorship which together would be make up the current shortfall which on some estimates is around £1 million a year.

If the club fails to get approval for a new stadium there are doubts as to whether Mr Kleanthous would be prepared to make a fresh attempt to return to Barnet.

His view is that if the community are against the club’s return and there is not the support which Bring Barnet Back believe there is, then there is little more that he can do.

But without the injection of additional revenue, the fear is that within four to five years’ time Barnet might no longer be sustainable financially.

With help from the distribution of funds from the Premier League, the club says it would establish a new charitable foundation at Barnet which would offer a range of activities with an outreach to local schools and support for local clubs.

Once back in Barnet, the club’s aim would be to establish community initiatives and there any number of possibilities, including, for example, the possibility of providing space for a local foodbank or other projects.

The club would open a new diagnostics and imaging centre at the new stadium in line with the facilities provided at The Hive which a said to be recognised as one of the best screening facilities at a football club.    

Posted on by — 3 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on by — 1 Comment

Whalebones development – Last chance to comment!

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

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

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

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

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

Below is the Society’s submission:

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

Overdevelopment

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

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

Harm to the Conservation Area

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

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

Breaches of policies on open space, the environment and farming

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

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

Other matters

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

Posted on by — 1 Comment

Concerns grow about lack of Council notification of Whalebones planning application

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on by — 1 Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

You can read SNB’s full objection here.

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

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

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

Posted on by — 3 Comments

Concessions at Whalebones – but not nearly enough

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

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

The saga so far…

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Society’s response

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to object

Submit your own objections directly via the planning portal.

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

Josh McLean MRTPI

Planning Manager

Planning and Building Control

Barnet Council

2 Bristol Avenue, Colindale, NW9 4EW

Posted on by

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 — 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 — 3 Comments

New housing in Barnet – a better way forward

Residents in the north of Barnet have recently felt besieged by new housing developments. We want more – and decent – homes for elderly as well as first-time buyers, but much of what is offered is unimaginative, out of scale and character with our neighbourhood, and mostly unaffordable. Surely we can do better? Brook Valley Gardens – nearing completion – shows one promising way forward.

The Barnet Society is hosting a public meeting on how to improve new and existing housing in Barnet. The debate on What in our back yard? WIMBYS, not NIMBYs! will be on Tuesday evening 21 February 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?)

Brook Valley Gardens is a huge site – over 10 hectares (26 acres) of the former Dollis Valley Estate – and planning approval was granted nearly 10 years ago. But because construction won’t be complete before 2025, and because most of it is hidden from Mays Lane, it’s escaped public attention. That’s a pity: it’s an important and exceptional piece of planning and design.

The project, led by Countryside Properties, replaces a late-1960s prefabricated council estate that suffered a range of building and social problems. Wholesale redevelopment contentiously involved displacement of some 177 council tenants but secured a net gain of 192 homes. Of its 631 new homes, 60% were for private sale and 40% were affordable housing (managed by housing association L&Q). The community was to benefit from a replacement nursery and community centre including the Hope Corner café. The Society supported the planning application.

We particularly supported the design approach of the architects. The master-planners of the whole scheme, and architects of early phases, are Alison Brooks Architects, and of later phases HTA Design. Both are housing specialists with fine track records including numerous awards.

A key feature of the scheme is the restoration of traditional streets, which makes navigation easy and knits the new housing into the existing neighbourhood. Each street is lined with trees and has a different combination of flats and houses with gardens.

Most of the houses are in two or three-storey terraces, but the twelve different house-types and their arrangement, sometimes in line and sometimes staggered, avoids uniformity. The flats are blockier and up to four storeys high, and often mark the street corners. This provides an interesting variety of massing and roofline, but the development retains a sense of identity through use of the same cream textured brick and a high quality of landscaping.

Although the scale of the buildings is fairly traditional, they’re often quirky in shape and detail. Not everyone will like that, but it’s a refreshing change from either of the dominant styles in planning applications, neither trad pastiche nor blunt modernism.

The result is a surprisingly high density of housing – over 60 homes per hectare, which is twice the density of postwar suburban housing but never feels claustrophobic or overbearing. Building at this density on brownfield land would not be enough to solve London’s housing shortage, but Brook Valley Gardens does demonstrate that high density does not necessitate tall buildings or inhumane environments.

Another strong feature of the scheme’s design is that all the dwellings are being built to Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4, a standard that was unusually high ten years ago. It includes a wide range of measures such as solar photovoltaic panels, rainwater harvesting, biodiversity and electric car charging points, all accommodated unobtrusively.

In short, Brook Valley Gardens displays a quite unusual quality of both design and construction. It sets a standard that other developers in Barnet would do well to follow – and thereby avoid the acrimonious planning battles that have raged from High Barnet Station to Barnet House in Whetstone, and from the Victoria Quarter to Cockfosters, and that now threaten The Spires.

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

Victory for New Barnet residents over Victoria Quarter development

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on by — 7 Comments

Help us save the grand old lady of Lyonsdown Road

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

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

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

Abbeytown Ltd

Martyn Gerrard House

197 Ballards Lane

London N3 1LP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on by

Green Belt reprieve from Mill Hill power plant proposals

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on by

New special needs school approved in Moxon Street office block

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on by — 1 Comment

Sunset View win at appeal vindicates Council and Barnet Society persistence

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sunset View resident Bill Foster commented,

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

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

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

Posted on by — 1 Comment

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 — 3 Comments

Goodbye to our Green Belt?

Above is the Green Belt between Barnet and St Albans. It’s the site of Bowmans Cross, a new settlement planned by Hertsmere Council. It will eventually have 6,000 homes for around 15,000 people – nearly as many as live in High Barnet ward. It will be a net-zero carbon, self-sustaining community, and the sketch above shows lots of trees. But if Hertsmere’s draft Local Plan is accepted, over 10% of Hertsmere’s (and also effectively Barnet’s) Green Belt will be lost forever.

Bowmans Cross is a showpiece of the Plan, which is currently out for public consultation. Another is a 63-hectare Media Quarter east of Borehamwood, which it is hoped will provide thousands of jobs. Other proposals include 2,770 houses in and around Borehamwood, 900 on the fields south of Potters Bar and 225 at South Mimms village (to list only those close to Barnet).

Good news for Barnet is that no new building is planned for the countryside south of the M25 and east of the A1. The media work opportunities will be welcome, to Barnet as much as to Hertsmere residents. But the Plan is vague about crucial details, and there’s much to cause concern:

  • Well over 10% of Hertsmere’s Green Belt will be built over.
  • At the low housing densities proposed, few homes are likely to be affordable.
  • About half of the new housing is to be built on brownfield land, but the proportion ought to be higher.
  • Little information is provided about Bowmans Cross, a new town half the size of Borehamwood and seven-tenths that of Potters Bar.
  • The economic case for a massive Media Quarter, or its long-term viability in a distributed digital age, is unexplained.
  • How Hertsmere residents will be prioritised for either housing or jobs isn’t stated.
  • Very little is said about transport, which will be vital to the Plan’s success, especially in semi-rural areas.
  • There is a potentially serious conflict with Enfield’s Local Plan over land use around M25 Junction 24.

We sympathise with Hertsmere’s predicament. It has to meet an ambitious government housing target, yet 79% of its area is designated as Metropolitan Green Belt, where development is only justifiable under very exceptional circumstances. But how hard has Hertsmere’s looked at its housing need and re-use of its brownfield land?

Its housing target is for a minimum of 760 new homes a year, or at least 12,160 homes by 2038. That’s based on the South West Herts Local Housing Needs Assessment, which appears not to have been challenged. Those who’ve been following the U-turns in the government’s proposed planning reforms will wonder how robust such figures are. The results of the 2021 Census are urgently needed to substantiate predictions of continuing population growth in the South-East, post-Brexit and post-Covid.

There’s also the question of whether Hertsmere’s houses will meet its own needs. It’s not explained how existing local residents will be prioritised. New homes near Barnet are almost certain to be cheaper and more spacious, internally and externally, than in Barnet itself. They’re bound to attract young couples and families struggling to afford property in our area. It would be ironic if much of Hertsmere’s new housing ended up benefitting Londoners at the expense of its own residents.

A further doubt surrounds affordability. The Plan says that 35% of new homes will be affordable, but CPRE research shows that only a tenth of homes built in the Green Belt are affordable, and these are rarely for social rent.

The Plan says, “The strategic green belt will be protected…and improvements made to the countryside and biodiversity to offset the impact of development.” That glosses over the fact that at least 10% of Hertsmere’s present Green Belt will be sacrificed to the developments listed above. Across the borough, the total will be greater, but the Plan is silent about the figure.

It‘s unclear how rigorously Hertsmere has investigated the alternative of re-using brownfield land. Table 3 in the Plan claims that 6,020 new homes – nearly half of its 15-year total requirement – would be on urban sites. According to its Table 2, 2,765 of such sites are available excluding smaller villages/hamlets, which seems scarcely credible. If true, it’s good news, but no brownfield register is mentioned to substantiate it.

If that brownfield land were to be redeveloped at densities equivalent to, say, the award-winning Newhall in Harlow – i.e. no more than four stories high, at 22 dwellings per hectare – even more of Hertsmere’s housing need could be met without resorting to Green Belt land. Alternatively, doubling the density currently proposed for Bowmans Cross (under 10 dwellings per hectare) would have a similar beneficial effect.

For Barnet residents, 900 homes on Green Belt separating Potters Bar from the M25 will be saddening. Not only do the present fields provide an attractive working agricultural landscape between Potters Bar and Barnet, they link visually with Bentley Heath, Dancers Hill, Wrotham Park, Dyrham Park and other greenery to create a panorama that’s much greater than the sum of its parts. The Baker Street and Barnet Road motorway bridges will make dismal southern gateways to the new housing, and it’s hard to imagine a pleasant life in the shadow of the M25.

For Hertsmere residents – and for Hertsmere Council – all this should be even more worrying. The London Green Belt Council’s report earlier this year ‘Safe Under Us’? revealed that 233,276 homes have already been given, or are seeking, planning permission in the Metropolitan Green Belt. Such has been local concern that several councils have been voted out of office or lost overall control, and the government has lost its parliamentary seat at Chesham & Amersham.

Another weakness of the planning process is illustrated by a potentially serious conflict with Enfield Council’s draft Local Plan. Hertsmere is designating land south-east of Junction 24 for wildlife. But Enfield’s Strategic Policy SP E1 allocates 11 hectares close by for industrial use. Furthermore, Enfield casually mentions that it would “seek to deliver the redevelopment of the wider site (in LB Hertsmere) to provide a coordinated employment offer”. This would detrimentally impact not only wildlife but also existing and proposed residents of Potters Bar.

 

The Media Quarter needs critical scrutiny. It will be vast – 63 hectares – and will have 34 sound stages, many times more than currently exist in Elstree & Borehamwood. The future for TV and film may look bright today, but for how long will digital industries continue to rely on centralised production? Unless the Mass Rapid Transport system tantalisingly mentioned in the Plan comes to pass, moreover, access will depend largely on two motorways, one of them notorious for traffic jams.

Transport is a major weakness of this and most of the Plan’s proposed developments. CPRE research shows that people living in Green Belt developments are tied to owning and using cars, as well as being stuck with the cost of commuting, creating further financial stress for families on low incomes. Hertsmere already suffers from poor public transport to and from its outlying estates and villages, but travel occupies only 10 out of 245 pages in its Plan.

A couple of final points from a neighbourly perspective. Firstly, Barnet already suffers from road and parking congestion caused at least partly by the rising number of commuters from Hertfordshire into London. Building new homes and workplaces near our border seems certain to exacerbate that.

Second and lastly, our Society was founded in 1945 specifically to protect the countryside around Chipping Barnet. In 1947-8, our then Treasurer E.H.Lucas researched and wrote Rambles Round Barnet & Rambles in South Hertfordshire, both of which were published by the Barnet Society. The majority of the walks follow public footpaths in Hertsmere, and have benefitted from its careful stewardship. Several generations of Barnet residents have learned to love countryside that is now planned for development. The footpaths may be safeguarded, but without their green environment they will offer a tragically diminished experience.

If residents of either Hertsmere or Barnet object to the draft Plan, it’s vital for them to do so by 6 December; after then, no changes of substance will be possible.

Hertsmere’s draft Local Plan can be found at:

https://www.hertsmerelocalplan.com/site/homePage

The deadline for public comments on it is 5pm on Monday 6 December.

The Barnet Society will be submitting a response, but you can also do so yourself as follows by:

  • completing an online survey under the Have Your Say tab on the plan’s bespoke website here
  • submitting comments via the consultation portal also available on the website
  • emailing local.plan@hertsmere.gov.uk
  • writing to Local Plan Consultation, Hertsmere Borough Council, Elstree Way, Borehamwood WD6 9SR.

 

Posted on by

The Lyon roared – but the developer is biting back

Back in February the Barnet Society thought it had helped save this remarkable Locally-Listed Victorian villa, when the Council unanimously refused its demolition in favour of 20 flats. But the developer has appealed against the decision, and you have until Wednesday 29 September to add your voice to preserve this building from the wrecking ball.

You can read about the dramatic refusal of the planning application in February here:

https://www.barnetsociety.org.uk/lyonsdown-roars

We knew that might not be the end of the story. The developer, Abbeytown Ltd, gave the property guardians notice to quit in March and has not responded to a letter from local residents inviting discussion about conversion of the building rather than demolition and redevelopment. As a result, this architectural gem currently stands empty and at risk of damage and decay.

Prestigious national heritage bodies agreed that demolition would be a disaster. In its support for our cause, the Victorian Society affirmed that “the building is of real architectural quality and interest” and that its loss “would have a detrimental impact on the local area”.

SAVE Britain’s Heritage also opposed “needless demolition” and questioned why no case had been presented for re-use of this Locally-Listed 1866 Victorian villa. The campaign also caught the eye of Private Eye’s ‘Nooks and Corners’ which reported in its 16-29 April 2021 edition that “Fears are growing for a large and unusual Italianate Victorian villa in New Barnet”.

The development of New Barnet began in 1850 when Barnet Station (now plain New Barnet) opened, and everything started to change in the area. No.33 – originally named ‘Oakdene’ – was one of the early, and grandest, villas to be built. As well as its striking external appearance with a unique bridge porch/conservatory entrance from Lyonsdown Road, many of its impressive Victorian features and fittings survive unaltered.

Today, it is one of last – and certainly the most characterful – left in a neighbourhood that is being gradually overwhelmed by new identikit apartment blocks and multi-storey office conversions. If New Barnet is to retain a distinct identity, it’s vital for rare survivals of such quality to be kept. At a time of climate crisis, it also makes sense not to waste all the carbon it embodies.

The colourful history of no.33 has been researched by local historian and Society Committee Member, Dr Susan Skedd. She has unravelled the fascinating evolution in its use, from upper-middle-class house, then a spell as a home for single mothers and children, then an African Catholic missionary HQ and most recently as affordable housing for young creatives.

Moreover, original sales documents in the British Library reveal that its architect was Arthur Rowland Barker (1842-1915), who had a portfolio of projects in and around Barnet. He trained with the leading church architect Ewan Christian, who designed Holy Trinity Church, Lyonsdown (1866). This connection probably introduced Barker to the area, and it was around this time that he established his own practice and designed Oakdene, the neighbouring villa ‘Lawnhill’ (demolished) and the new south aisle of St Mary’s Church, East Barnet (1868-69).

In 2020 we succeeded in getting No.33 added to Barnet’s Local List on grounds of its

Aesthetic Merits, Social and Communal Value, Intactness and Architectural Interest. To that should now be added its Historical Interest and its Rarity.

To avoid its Rarity turning into Extinction, we’re working with local residents to put up the best case we can to the Planning Inspectorate, which will adjudicate the appeal. Our main objections are that:

  • 33 is a unique local architectural and historical asset that deserves be saved.
  • The building is ideally suited to re-use.
  • To demolish it and build a new block would be environmentally wasteful.
  • The proposed replacement block would be overbearing, austere and inappropriate.

The Barnet Society and Lyonsdown Road residents will be submitting representations, but the more who do so, the better. Please find a few minutes to submit your own objection by contacting the Planning Inspectorate by Wednesday 29 September via:

Be sure to quote the appeal reference no. APP/N5090/W/21/3272187 and provide your own name and address.

You’re welcome to use the Society’s points, but preferably use your own words. Many thanks!

Posted on by

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

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

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