Tag: environment

Posted on by — 4 Comments

Save Chipping Barnet Woodland campaigners delighted by planning refusal for new house in a protected wood close to Hadley Green

An application to build a six-bedroom house in a protected wood between Sunset View and Hadley Green has been rejected by Barnet Council on the grounds it would cause unacceptable harm to a woodland habitat.

Nearby residents mounted a highly publicised campaign to save what they argued was a significant wildlife corridor between the Green and Old Fold Manor golf course.

Over 2,000 people signed a petition against the application and there were multiple objections to the planning department.

Expressing delight at the result, Marianne Nix, one of the lead objectors, said their campaign to save the woodland would now refocus on efforts to ensure it is included in the Barnet Parks and Open Space strategy.  

In rejecting the application by Christchurchgrove Ltd, the council says building a house on a one-acre site in the woodland would damage the character and appearance of the Monken Hadley Conservation Area.

When the developers held a public consultation last year to unveil their plans for the proposed house – see above – Stuart Lees, of Alan Cox Architects, told residents steps would be taken to safeguard mature trees on the site, most of which are already covered by tree protection orders.

There would be other measures to enhance the biodiversity of the woodland and as the new house would be surrounded by trees, it would be hardly visible, which had been one of the aims in the design.

Planning permission was refused because the council considered it would result in the unjustified loss and deterioration of protected woodland and to a significant number of trees within a woodland tree protection order.

This would cause “unacceptable harm to the woodland habitat and to the character and appearance of the Monken Hadley Conservation Area.”

Site clearance and loss of vegetation would “irrevocably and harmfully” alter the woodland character, and the siting and size of the new house would appear to be “out of character and appearance” of the conservation area and general locality.

Christchurchgrove Ltd had failed to demonstrate that construction, access and essential services could be delivered in accordance with recognised industry guidance, including standards relating to underground service installation near trees.

“The development would further create substantial post development pressures for the removal and degradation of trees, deadwood, and ground flora, leading to the incremental erosion of the woodland’s ecological and landscape value.”

Application for house in wood close to Hadley Green has been rejected by Barnet Council because it would unacceptable harm to a woodland habitat.
Screenshot

If the new house had been approved the objectors feared that badgers, bats, mistle thrush and other protected species would be in danger of losing their habitat.

Marianne Nix, who lives next to the woodland, installed a trail camera in her garden when she moved to High Barnet three years ago.

As well as recording hedgehogs scuttling about, there have been shots of badgers – including the picture above, captured on her video camera last New Year’s Eve when fireworks were exploding near the woodland.

So far two of the veteran trees on the site have been verified by the Ancient Tree Register – which supplied the screen shot of Sunset View and the woodland.

Robin Bishop, Planning & Environment Lead for the Barnet Society, commented, “Although we’d worked with the developer and secured some important improvements, scrutiny of the submitted documents left us with many concerns. Ours was one of 279 objections lodged against the application, an impressive number for such an inconspicuous site.

“It’s timely that the Council’s refusal came a day after the Mayor of London published London’s Local Nature Recovery Strategy. Although the spinney isn’t on the LNRS Local Habitat Map, it adjoins Old Fold Manor Golf Course, which is. The LNRS and Barnet Couuncil’s refusal are milestones in growing public awareness of the inportance of nature in cities.”

Posted on by — 4 Comments

If you go down in the woods today, you’re sure of a big surprise!

This is a Badger Boar in Chipping Barnet Woodland at 5:53 am on New Year’s Day 2026. It’s one of several fine photographs in this article by Marianne Nix, a Barnet Society member who lives opposite the spinney by Christchurch Lane and designs leaflets and posters for the Save Chipping Barnet Woodland petition. She writes here in her personal capacity.

Marianne Nix writes

As the famous old song in the headline promised, if you go down in the woods today, you’re sure of a big surprise*. But is it really that surprising that badgers, muntjac deer and other protected species live and forage 350 metres from High Barnet High Street?

In June last year ecologists did a walk-through of a small one-acre woodland on Christchurch Lane. It is in the Monken Hadley Conservation Area, Chipping Barnet. According to their Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) submitted on 13th January 2026, as part of a current planning application to build a six-bed mansion with cinema, swimming pool and space to park three cars, they found little to persuade them or the Developer employing them, Christchurchgrove Ltd, that there was much of note in this Woodland with no official name.

The temporarily named ‘Chipping Barnet Woodland’ is sandwiched between Old Fold Manor Golf Course and Hadley Green. If you are on a gentle stroll with push chair, dog, a chatty friend, running or walking between your home and place of work, it could take you as little as 5 minutes to reach High Barnet High Street. The Woodland is a tranquil pocket of peace buffering a busy urban existence on the edge of London.

Christchurchgrove Ltd and Barnet Recreational Trust made a conditional sale agreement with Barnet Council Estates to purchase the Woodland if planning permission is granted. The planning application is for the ‘Demolition of the existing garage and erection of a new two storey dwelling with rooms in the roof space. Associated landscaping, off street parking and refuse/recycling storage’.

On first reading, the PEA may sound reasonable. Until you visit the site. When I first moved to High Barnet, and next to the Woodland three years ago, I set up a trail camera in my garden and was delighted to find hedgehogs scootling about. I discovered bats in my attic and much to my surprise, my garden trail camera video revealed a badger shrouded in mist.

In July 2024, after learning of the potential development threat, I emailed Barnet Council biodiversity officers and others about my dismay. I included the images I mentioned above of a bat, a hedgehog and a badger. I assumed the data would become part of the ecology base line of the area and available to future ecologists via Barnet Council. My hope was that any developer would think twice about building on the land. It was clear to me then that the Council’s moral duty was to protect the Woodland.

The local community was getting nowhere with their attempts to convince the Council and our local MP Dan Tomlinson of the travesty of selling the Woodland for development. Last July a group got together and created the campaign group Save Chipping Barnet Woodland (SCBW). One of the first steps was to find out what data ecologists might find on the wildlife and habitat in the woodland.  With no budget, the campaign group approached GiGL (Greenspace Information Greater London) who provide data to ecologists. We were dismayed to discover there were few wildlife records of the site and its surroundings. My bat, hedgehog and badger were not mentioned. We started collecting data of our own and sending it to Barnet Council and GiGL as citizen scientists. These records should form a baseline in the GiGL database for future reference.

Fortunately, many Barnet residents do have their eyes open to the magic of nature. This is demonstrated by the support from over 2,250 signatures to our Save Chipping Barnet Woodland petition started in mid-September 2025.  Our campaign, with a core group of approximately 35 local resident members, has devoted much of their spare time proving what two so called ‘experts’ employed to carry out a preliminary ecological appraisal did not appear to observe, record or acknowledge. On nearly every occasion we used date and time-stamped trail cameras we were pleasantly surprised to record more than a fox or two. We captured images and video of badger, muntjac deer, woodmouse and more.

Below, at 9am a male fox goes about his morning business quite hidden just a few meters away from passers-by on Christchurch Lane going about theirs.

Screenshot

However, Andrew Robinson, Director of Christchurchgrove Ltd. goes as far as to say in his response to an article published before Christmas in The Barnet Society online edition:

‘The site…has low levels of biodiversity. We know this because we have had it surveyed by an expert ecologist…This survey has shown that there are absolutely [no] mammals living here. No badgers, foxes, bats, deer or hedgehogs…or, in fact, any protected species.’

Astonishingly the PEA commissioned by him states on page 28 that there may be hedgehogs!

‘…it is considering [sic] that breeding and foraging hedgehog may be present within the Site and be impacted by the proposed works.’

The largest Oak tree that stands in the Woodland, and verified as Veteran by the Ancient Tree register, has numerous holes and cavities possibly suitable for bats. There are Birch with multiple holes in the middle of the site. And of course there is my very own roost in my attic within 30 metres of the site. I love my bats. It’s a nice feeling thinking of them hanging about, sleeping and then warming up by flying about my roof space before launching themselves, weather permitting, into the canopy of the woodland.

Below is the Veteran Oak with cavities possibly suitable for bat roost.

Much to my surprise the existence of the bat roost in my attic and the licence to do minor works I obtained in 2023 – 2025 from the Bat Conservation Trust are not mentioned in the ecologist reports.

‘Therefore, it is considering [sic] that potential for the Site to support roosting bats is negligible—no impacts from the proposed works to these species are anticipated’ (PEA, page 22).

There is a badger sett confirmed by Herts & Middlesex Badger group in January. The setts are protected. They were discovered by two of our volunteers, not the ‘expert ecologist’. Also there is no acknowledgment of the sett in the ecological reports.

‘…it is considered that the potential for the Site to support breeding, foraging and resting badger is negligible— no impact from the proposed works to this species are anticipated’ (PEA, page 22).

There are other inaccuracies in the application. I have complained to the Council. But to no avail. The application inaccuracies cannot be changed. It appears there is no governance that can stop the misleading of the public. The developer is encouraged to hold public ‘consultations’ to ‘listen’ and make adjustments to their application. There are no rules regarding the accuracy of their presentations. We, the residents of Barnet, to my knowledge, officially have no framework to put across the alternative ‘facts’ to the public. The planning system has to change. This week on Tuesday there was a Barnet Council meeting to discuss making the planning system more democratic. Unfortunately I was too busy saving Chipping Barnet Woodland to attend.

Our images and videos show that the habitat combining a range of trees including Cherry Laurel appears to be functioning well. The badgers, foxes, muntjac deer, woodmice, multiple bird species such as Tawny Owl and Mistle Thrush on Amber or Red conservation list and seen rarely elsewhere, all appreciate the ‘novel ecosystem’ found in the ‘Woodland with no name’. (British Ecological Society, Sept 11th 2024: ‘Novel ecologies the new normal?’)

Below, species seen within 50 metres of the Woodland – left to right: Small Copper Butterfly; Common Frog; Smooth Newt, Male.

The wildlife love the Woodland, judging by their repeated and lengthy stays captured on video earlier this month when freezing conditions made the ground elsewhere rock solid. The deep leaf litter and protection of the canopy and understory keeps the ground soft. This allows for lingering and rooting in the leaf debris. There appears to be lots to eat; a good sign of a strong ecosystem. The PEA and Biodiversity Net Gain assessment submitted as part of the planning application belies the truth of what we can see with our own eyes, even if it is a surprise!

To make your own comments regarding the planning application ref 26/0116/FUL go to Barnet Council Planning Applications. Deadline Thursday 12th February 2026. If you have difficulty accessing the planning portal, you can submit your comments by alternative ways listed here.

Screenshot

Above, a Muntjac Buck, a frequent visitor to the Woodland.

*Songwriters: Jimmy Kennedy / John W. Bratton

Teddy Bear Picnic lyrics © Wb Music Corp., Emi Music Publishing Ltd, M Witmark & Sons, Emi Music Publishing Ltd, B Feldman & Co Ltd

Posted on by — 7 Comments

Planning application in to build a house in Christchurch spinney

Above is a visualisation of the new 6-bedroom house proposed by its designers, Alan Cox Architects, in secluded woodland barely 200 metres from Barnet High Street. The site is described by the applicants as ‘unkempt’, and by locals petitioning against development as a ‘wildlife haven’. The site is within the Monken Hadley Conservation Area and close to the Green Belt. Some trees have individual Tree Preservation Orders; however all the trees are protected by the conservation area status.

The application is a test of Barnet Council’s commitment to protecting the environment. You can comment on the proposals until Thursday 12 February – see below for details.

Barnet Council declared a Climate and Biodiversity Emergency in 2022. Barnet Labour’s Green Manifesto promised to ‘Protect ALL existing green spaces in the Borough’. And its recently-adopted Local Plan contains policies and supplementary planning documents specifically to protect green spaces. Mayor Khan has similar planning policies, and recently consulted on London’s first Nature Recovery Plan to reverse biodiversity loss.

The site is mainly established deciduous woodland. Although small in area its ecological value is great because it provides a vital undisturbed ‘green corridor’ for the transit of insects, animals and flying creatures between the Old Fold Manor golf course and Hadley Green, both of which are in the Green Belt. It is not managed, however, and its biodiversity is limited by the dominance of cherry laurel and bramble on the east side of the site.

In 2024 the Council authorised the sale of part of the spinney that it owns for £430,000, subject to the buyer obtaining planning consent.

The planning application is by Christchurchgrove Ltd, a developer in a joint venture with Barnet Recreation Trust (BRT), which owns the other part of the present site. BRT is a charity that supports ‘the provision of facilities in the interest of social welfare for recreational and leisure-time occupation’ locally.

Both organisations would profit from the sale of the substantial (567 sq m) new house and garden that would occupy about a third of the site. The house-owner would be responsible for the rest of the (0.4 hectare / 1 acre) site, which includes almost all the existing protected trees. (See plan below by Helene Landscape and Garden Design).

A public consultation on the proposals was held before Christmas, and Nick Jones’s report on that can be found here. You can also read my earlier post on the issues this project raises for nature protection.

Ideally, the Barnet Society would like to see Christchurch spinney and its wildlife conserved, enhanced and protected, with a minimum of landscaping to enable some public access. In practice, that would require funding and organisation that the Council can’t currently provide. It’s a pity no effort seems to have been made to find a community group or charity to take it on.

Although we’d prefer no house to be built at all, we wouldn’t object to permission being given for one on the least ecologically valuable part of the site on certain conditions:

  • The house and garden must be in keeping with their natural setting.
  • They must be built to high environmental standards.
  • The site as a whole must be subject to a long-term management plan to safeguard and enhance the environment.

The scheme the Society was shown last year fell short on all these counts. To the developer’s credit, however, it has been improved in the light of our comments. Overall, therefore, we’re neutral about the application. But because we aren’t yet convinced about a number of critical details, we’ll submit a list of conditions that must be met before approval.

How you can comment

Have your say one of these ways:

  1. on the Council’s planning portal (ref. no. 26/0116/FUL) via the Comments tab;
  2. email comments direct to planning.consultation@barnet.gov.uk (cc tania.sacordeiro@barnet.gov.uk); or
  3. post your comments to the Planning Officer: Tania Sa Cordeiro, Planning and Building Control, Barnet Council, 2 Bristol Avenue, Colindale, NW9 4EW.

In the cases of 2 & 3, be sure to include:

  • the application ref. no. (26/0116/FUL) clearly at the top
  • the site address (Land Opposite 15 Sunset View Barnet EN5 4LB) and
  • your name, address and postcode.

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

Posted on by — 11 Comments

Public consultation on proposed new house in Christchurch Lane spinney

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on by — 4 Comments

Protecting green spaces – how serious are our politicians?

View of Christchurch spinney in early autumn

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

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

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

Worryingly, the answer is no.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on by — 1 Comment

Whalebones development – Last chance to comment!

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

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

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

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

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

Below is the Society’s submission:

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

Overdevelopment

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

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

Harm to the Conservation Area

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

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

Breaches of policies on open space, the environment and farming

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

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

Other matters

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

Posted on by — 1 Comment

Concerns grow about lack of Council notification of Whalebones planning application

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on by — 1 Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

You can read SNB’s full objection here.

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

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

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

Posted on by — 3 Comments

Concessions at Whalebones – but not nearly enough

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

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

The saga so far…

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Society’s response

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to object

Submit your own objections directly via the planning portal.

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

Josh McLean MRTPI

Planning Manager

Planning and Building Control

Barnet Council

2 Bristol Avenue, Colindale, NW9 4EW

Posted on by — 2 Comments

Greening Barnet’s existing homes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please click this link to add your own support.

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

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

 

Posted on by — 2 Comments

Barnet’s biggest environmental challenge?

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

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

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

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

Please click this link to add your own support!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on by — 1 Comment

Healthier homes – what can Barnet residents do?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How can we put this into action in Chipping Barnet?

Posted on by

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

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

Local enthusiasm for tree planting, restoring the Tudor Park pavilion – and a new edition of Rambles Round Barnet?

On Tuesday 13 July, the Barnet Society held its first Open Meeting on topical local issues via Zoom. Around 50 members of the Society and general public participated. This is what we discussed.

Welcome

Frances Wilson introduced herself as the Society’s first Rotating Chair and thanked everyone for joining to discuss issues in more detail than was possible at the AGM and in an informal fashion within the confines of Zoom.  The AGM was the first time we had held a mass Zoom meeting, which seemed to go fairly well thanks to Simon Watson our Website Officer, who fortunately is here again to sort out any technical issues. The invitation indicated the four topics under discussion: tree planting, Tudor Park Cricket Pavilion, Rambles 3 and an update on planning and the environment.

Tree planting

Robin Bishop said the Barnet Society had a proud tradition of planting trees, including plantations on Whitings Hill in 1995 led by Jenny Remfry, in 1998 Lee’s Trees  (inspired by David Lee), the line of London Planes  and Norway Maples on Barnet Hill from Underhill to Milton Avenue, and recently along the High Street.

We would like to finish the job on Barnet Hill and have planted 125 of a planned 300 hawthorns screening Vale Drive Health Authority and St Catherines School. On 17th January’22, which is the Jewish New Year of the Tree and with the help of Kisharon, we would like to plant more hawthorns to complete the job and have received a donation of £200 towards the cost of saplings.  We will need volunteers to help organise and plant them.

Suggestions from Members

Susan Marcus said before we plant anything we must ensure there is a 10 year management plan to ensure the trees will be maintained and this should be costed. She said we should concentrate on parks rather than look for other areas.  Willing to be on Working Party.

New Barnet – Junction by St Marks Church Meadway/Potters Lane.- This is currently a very neglected site but very prominent and would not take too much effort to improve it. Simon Watson happy to assist and Leyla Atayeva said she would be happy to assist as she lives in St Marks Close.

Meadway Open Space  – ( stretches from Meadway to Potters Lane and follows the underground). This too would be a suitable area to plant trees.

Andy Bryce said he was an architect and asked if we had any advice from landscape architects or tree specialists.  He said he may be able to suggest a contact.  He also said schemes should link up.

Robin said one of the suggestions in the Community Plan was to provide signposts from the Town Centre showing 10 minute walks to various green areas, e.g. Whitings Hill.

Susan Skedd suggested we walk around the area with a landscape architect and someone who could advise on different species to encourage birds and other wild life.

Quinton Dighton said U3A are hoping to plant 1,000 trees this year so perhaps we could work together.  Robin asked them to let us know who to contact at U3A.

Barnet Council are considering planting tiny forests and making a Regional Park near Moat Mount.

Robin welcomed all these suggestions and said we needed to co-ordinate them. He suggested people contact him via the Society website info@barnetsociety.org.uk.

Tudor Park Cricket Pavilion

Simon Cohen said he had organised a survey to find out what people thought of the disused cricket pavilion which had been unused for years except for storing garden equipment for the Parks Dept. 1,000 people took part in the survey and 98% wanted to see it re-used as a community space or café. Simon Kaufman carried out a structural survey and confirmed it is in a terrible condition.  There is a kitchen, male and female changing rooms and showers but all in a dreadful condition and would require complete replacement.  Plus needs re-wiring and replumbing. Cllr David Longstaff visited and put in a successful bid to the Council of CIL funding to restore it.

The Council will provide £200,000 over 2 years to make it fit for a Commercial lease. This is ambiguous and residents must put forward ideas to guide them in the right direction. Also the refurbishment will require more than £200,000 so we will have to fund raise to pay the extra costs.

Simon said we need to set up a ‘Friends of Tudor Park’ Group to give us more influence and to develop our vision and suggested if attendees were interested they contact him via his email address or the Barnet Society Website.

Suggestions from Zoom attendees:

Rahim Alibhai said he and his friends worked with a group of autistic children and said it would be ideal for their use. He also said it should be multi-use and could be shared with AA, art groups, socialising groups and St Johns Ambulance could be a really good community hub. He said his autistic children group was very big and could support children and parents and have professionals there.

Simon said it should be made a condition of the lease that it be available for community use perhaps 3 hours a  night. Andy Byrne asked if the Council have anything in mind but Simon said he did not know.

Jenny Remfry suggested it could be used for children’s parties or the allotment growers close by.

Nikki Rice lives in Chester Avenue and said it should be used as community space such as Toddlers Group, Music Group and happy to help. Suggested solar panels on the roof to help with funding.

Ben Nahum owns a bagel factory and lives nearby and said he would be interested in providing a café and it could be used as social hub during the evenings. Has spoken to Gail Laser & Robin Bishop in the past and will email them so they have his contact details.

Aviva Driscoll asked what size is the interior space? Simon Kaufman said 277 square meters and you could get 80-100 people sitting in main space perhaps for weddings or bar mitzvahs. He also thought it could be used as a flexible space so could have more than one activity at a time. He made it very clear £200,000 would make the building safe so the challenge is to raise the money to carry out the rest of the work.  He suggested we could look at grants such as Environment or Sports.

Foot Golf is also on the site so they should be involved.

Simon said anyone interested in helping with this project should contact him via simon.sjc@btinternet.com  or the Society website info@barnetsociety.org.uk.

Rambles 3

Simon Kaufman showed a copy of Rambles 1 which was originally published in 1948, published in an expanded version in 2012, and has just been reprinted as a Limited Edition. He said following the lockdown there has been an increased interest in walking and the local countryside so the Society were keen to produce an up to date user friendly booklet using the GPS App. But we need help from others.

Simon then showed some slides:

Source of information – Best routes for walks around Barnet, History of Chipping Barnet, Important buildings and landscapes in Barnet, Facilities and local attractions for families with children.

This would be a way to promote the Society to new and prospective members and raise funds.

He outlined who would use the booklet such as walkers, cyclists, families and wheelchair users.

He  outlined the Geographical scope suggesting about 3.5 kms to 7.0 kms from Barnet Town Centre.

We would consult with Members to find their favourite places and walks, and contact Ramblers Ass, Chipping Barnet Community Plan, Green Ring, Local Authority Footpaths, Open Spaces Society and Barnet Museum.

Suggested New Routes – Victorian Barnet, Historic Barnet, Edge of London, Green Spaces (parks) Monken Hadley/Trent Park, Moat Mount.

Simon suggested we re-interpret Lucas’s Walks as some are quite difficult to walk due to changes that have taken place. Thought we could consider Wrotham Park and The Shire, Darland’s Lake, North Mimms & Potters Bar, South Mimms to Broad Colney.

Simon showed examples of other walkers publication but also suggested Topo, GPS app and Google Maps which are used by Ramblers Ass.

Following this presentation Simon said there was a lot of enthusiasm for the project but there is a lot of work and we will need help with:

Graphic Design

Walking routes – taking notes and photos

Digital structure

GPS or Google Mapping

Organisation of book printing and sales

Suggested places to go and things to see.

Anyone interested in helping or with suggestions should contact Simon through our   Website info@barnetsociety.org.uk and label it Rambles 3.

Les Bedford said it was an excellent presentation and we need to all pool our knowledge.

Planning and environment update

Robin Bishop said the biggest threat currently was the proposed ‘reforms’ to Planning Legislation which would tear up the current planning system. It would expand permitted development in order to build more housing and there would be no public consultation once areas have been designated for growth, so local residents would be unable to object. There is a need for more housing but it needs to be proportionate and sympathetic to the neighbourhood.

Current schemes where we have objected

The Victoria Quarter – We objected to this scheme where the Developer proposed 650 flats, there was a lot of local opposition and the Council reflecting this opposed the scheme unanimously against the advice of the Officers. This is ongoing and the Developers have now proposed another scheme of 554 units and reduced the height of the tower blocks but we are still critical and will oppose it further.

33 Lyonsdown Road – This is the last surviving Victorian Villa which The Barnet Society successfully had placed on the Local List. The Developer wants to demolish it and replace it with 20 flats. We opposed this proposal along with many others including the Victorian Society so it has had a lot of publicity and was refused by the Council. However the owners may appeal and in the meantime they are allowing the building to rot.

Whalebones is another scheme we opposed and again the Council refused Planning Permission but the Developer has appealed to the Planning Inspectorate. We have submitted a strong representation and will attend the public inquiry at the end of August.  Robin thanked Guy Braithwaite, Bill Foster and Nick Saul for their help. Robin emphasised how key Whalebones was to the identity of Chipping Barnet.

The Local Plan – Jenny Remfry said this is currently on display in the local library for residents to provide comments. There are 3 sites shown in Chipping Barnet. Whalebones, High Barnet Station with blocks 8 storeys high with commercial and a hotel proposed and MOD land in St Albans Road as the Territorial base may be put up for sale with room for 193 flats.  There would have to be an archaeological dig first. Robin said we have been working on this for 2 years with BRA and FORAB and it has been adopted by the Council subject to public consultation which is now taking place. Jenny thought it was a good plan.

There were no further questions so Frances reminded everyone to look at Robin’s regular P&E report, which appeared on the website roughly every 2 months, in order to keep up to date and let us know their opinions.She thanked everyone for coming and Simon Watson for providing the technical support, asked those not already members to join the Society, and asked anyone wanting to help to contact us via our website: info@barnetsociety.org.uk.

For Robin’s reports plus Society submissions on Barnet’s Local Plan and other major planning and environmental topics, go to Our Work on our website.

Posted on by

Full house at Barnet homeless night shelter

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

Continue reading Full house at Barnet homeless night shelter

Posted on by — 6 Comments

Building Threat on Potters Bar & South Mimms Green Belt

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

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

Posted on by

New sports and community hubs in the green belt?

The Barnet Society welcomes the Council’s intention to restore Barnet & King George V Playing Fields, and to widen public access by providing a café with toilet facilities and play areas for children and their parents or carers. However, we currently consider that the development suggested in the master plan would be too intrusive and requires a re-think.

Continue reading New sports and community hubs in the green belt?

Posted on by

Ensuring historic footpaths are preserved

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

Continue reading Ensuring historic footpaths are preserved

Posted on by — 5 Comments

Accolade for High Street campaigner

Gail Laser, founder of Love Barnet, has won national recognition for the decade she has spent working tirelessly to improve trading conditions in Barnet High Street.

Continue reading Accolade for High Street campaigner

Posted on by

Plea to save historic plaque

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

Continue reading Plea to save historic plaque

Posted on by — 3 Comments

High Street’s “ghost advertisement”

High Barnet’s most prominent “ghost advertisement” – high up on a side wall in the High Street – is creating quite a flurry of interest and might well be up for listing as being of historical interest.

Continue reading High Street’s “ghost advertisement”

Posted on by — 7 Comments

Make-over for historic Union Street

Plans to replace a semi-derelict vacant shop that has blighted Union Street for many years will go a long way towards finishing off a make-over for one of High Barnet’s historic thoroughfares.

Continue reading Make-over for historic Union Street

Posted on by — 1 Comment

Special protection for local landmarks

Three Barnet war memorials – at Arkley, East Barnet and Monken Hadley Common – have been given the added protection of listed building status after a review conducted by Historic England.

Continue reading Special protection for local landmarks

Posted on by

Green fingers for schoolchildren

In a first for schools in the London Borough of Barnet, the Pavilion study centre in Meadway, High Barnet, is offering vulnerable and excluded school children the opportunity to get an entry level qualification in horticulture.

Continue reading Green fingers for schoolchildren

Posted on by — 10 Comments

Residents revolt over super-size school

After facing a barrage of complaints and criticism over proposal to build a new school for almost 2,000 pupils on what was formerly the Barnet Football Club stadium, the Ark Academy network admitted its plans were “not yet a done deal”.

Continue reading Residents revolt over super-size school

Posted on by

Catering skills of Barnet students put to test

Catering and tourism students from Barnet and Southgate College are gaining work experience at High Barnet’s newest pop-up shop, a family-friendly tea shop that has opened in the Spires shopping centre.

Continue reading Catering skills of Barnet students put to test