Tag: High Barnet Station

Posted on by — 4 Comments

High Barnet Station – Mayor’s team set to decide own planning application                      

Since Barnet Council decided in December that it was minded to refuse Barratt London’s planning application, the Mayor of London has called it in for review. A public hearing seems likely directly after the local elections on 7 May 2026. The Barnet Society & Barnet Residents Association are greatly concerned that the Mayor’s decision won’t be impartial, and has sent the letter below to our MP, Barnet Councillors and its Greater London Assembly Member.

Readers are urged to make their feelings about the planning application known to Dan Tomlinson MP at dan.tomlinson.mp@parliament.uk and Assembly Member Anne Clarke at anne.clarke@london.gov.uk

We expect candidates seeking election to Barnet Council in May in wards in and around High Barnet will be asked by residents whether they are for or against the blocks of flats being proposed on the tube station car park. For some voters this will be a critical issue.

We are hoping for a clear indication of where candidates of all parties stand. The positions to be taken by our MP and GLA member are of particular interest ahead of polling day.

Dear Dan Tomlinson, Assembly Member Anne Clarke & selected Barnet Councillors

We write on behalf of the Barnet Society & Barnet Residents Association to ask if we can count on your support at the Mayor of London’s representation hearing on this planning application. As you will know, the Mayor called in the application following Barnet Council’s decision on 8 December 2025 that it was minded to refuse it.

The date for the hearing seems likely to be directly after the local elections on 7 May 2026.

Our principal concern at this point is the clear conflict of interest since the Mayor controls Transport for London, which not only owns the site and runs the tube and bus services connecting it to our neighbourhood, but has commissioned the project and stands to profit from its construction. That is setting, writing and marking your own homework.

Although the Mayor has delegated the decision to his Deputy, Jules Pipe, conflict of interest cannot be avoided since Jules Pipe has made statements in support of this and other TfL developments. He has also expressed regret at their refusal when they could not be called in. That is not an unbiased position from which to determine the future character of Chipping Barnet.

If approved, the application will have a most harmful impact on the town and its nearby green spaces, and set a benchmark for future development in the area. Visualisations in the application were cynically manipulated to downplay its deplorable visual impact.

We’d welcome well-designed homes at an appropriate scale of development. But this proposal grossly exceeds that.

Instead, it would

  • breach many policies in Barnet’s recently-adopted Local Plan, including its tall buildings assessment for this site endorsed by the Planning Inspectorate, and make incorrect use of the Hillingdon case to justify a tall building in this location;
  • create homes of unacceptably poor safety and quality in terms of layout, detailed design and amenity;
  • provide minimal improvements to accessibility and safety that would be negated by loss of the car park;
  • exacerbate existing congestion of the set-down and pick-up area, likely causing vehicles to back up onto the busy A1000;
  • irreparably harm the identity of the neighbourhood, nearby and from afar;
  • be unsustainable by many environmental standards, contrary to the developer’s claims; and
  • offer no compensating benefits of significance by way of transport connectivity or new/improved facilities to the existing community.

Our many pages of comments on the application detailed multiple breaches of Borough, London & National policy and guidance (some of them basic matters not revealed in earlier public consultations).

In sum, the site is unsuitable for 1,000 new residents. The resulting excessive height, density and design weaknesses – and the operational difficulties that would beset residents and travellers and the public, commercial and emergency services trying to serve them – risk repeating the mistakes of postwar housing estates. That would be to the lasting cost of our community and the identity and character of Chipping Barnet.

Regards

Robin Bishop

Planning & Environment Lead, the Barnet Society

Gordon Massey

Planning Consultant, Barnet Residents Association

The planning application can be viewed on Barnet Council’s planning portal (reference no. 25/2671/FUL). The Mayor of London’s case reference is 2025/0802/S2.

On our website you can read the Barnet Society’s objections to the scheme as well as coverage of the Council’s Planning Committee decision.

Posted on by — 20 Comments

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

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

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

The Barnet Society role

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

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

The meeting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What will happen next?

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

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

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

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