Tag: planning

Posted on by — 3 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on by — 3 Comments

New housing in Barnet – a better way forward

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

The Barnet Society is hosting a public meeting on how to improve new and existing housing in Barnet. The debate on What in our back yard? WIMBYS, not NIMBYs! will be on Tuesday evening 21 February at The Bull theatre, 68 High Street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on by

Barnet open spaces exemplify the importance of the Green Belt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Richard’s messages are especially urgent today, when local councils in London and the Home Counties are currently planning to allow building on more than 48,000 acres of the Green Belt, according to a major new report by the London Green Belt Council (LGBC). ‘Safe Under Us’?. That’s huge: the equivalent of the combined area of the London Boroughs of Barnet, Camden and Enfield – or 60 Hampstead Heaths. You can read about the threat here.

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

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

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

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

Posted on by

London is set to lose 48,000 acres of its local countryside

Local councils in London and the Home Counties are currently planning to allow building on more than 48,000 acres of the Green Belt, according to a major new report by the London Green Belt Council (LGBC). That’s huge: the equivalent of the combined area of the London Boroughs of Barnet, Camden and Enfield – or of 60 Hampstead Heaths.

It is a shocking statistic, especially when the government – including both Conservative leadership contenders Rishi Sunak and Liz Truss – claims to be committed to protecting the Green Belt. Our own MP, Theresa Villiers, has called the situation ‘very worrying’.

The report ‘Safe Under Us’? The continued shrinking of London’s local countryside, 2022 shows that altogether the amount of Green Belt land offered up for development has increased by a massive 127% since 2016, when the LGBC first started tracking threats to London’s local countryside.

Land around London began to be safeguarded from the interwar sprawl of London’s suburbs in the 1930s, and in his 1944 Greater London Plan, Patrick Abercrombie proposed a ring of greenery around the capital. In 1945 our Society was founded to protect the fields around Chipping Barnet from being built over for 40,000 houses. In 1955 the Green Belt was enshrined in planning law, leaving us surrounded on three sides by greenery (see map below).

Since then the Green Belt has been a vital ‘green lung’ for Londoners seeking respite from their urban habitat. More recently, the vital role that open countryside plays in biodiversity, flood prevention and climate change mitigation has become obvious. The Covid-19 pandemic proved its enormous value to people’s health and wellbeing. And the Ukrainian crisis reminds us of its importance for food security.

‘Safe Under Us’? details the extent of Green Belt loss under the Local Plans currently being drafted by every Council. It points out how all of the region’s housing needs could easily be met by building on brownfield (previously developed) urban sites instead. The full report can be read here.

The report highlights the fact that many councils are still using housing figures based on out-of-date (2014) population and household projections from the Office for National Statistics when more recent and accurate Census figures show a marked slowing-down of population increase. Far fewer houses are actually needed than are currently being planned for.

Furthermore, adds LGBC Chairman Richard Knox-Johnston, “It is a fallacy that building in the Green Belt will provide affordable homes. New development in the Green Belt is mainly 4 or 5-bedroom homes built at very low densities since those are the most profitable for developers to build, so not providing affordable homes for young people.”

The counties of Hertfordshire, Essex and Surrey account for two-thirds of all the current development threats. Barnet is one of the least offending planning authorities, planning to build 576 homes on a mere 133 acres of the Green Belt. Fortunately, most of these are previously-developed land in Mill Hill (the former National Institute of Medical Research and Jehovah’s Witness sites).

Despite Barnet’s policies on protecting the Green Belt and environment, however, over the last five years around 40 planning applications have been made to build on Green Belt in or near Chipping Barnet. Most are to replace existing buildings with modest residential developments, but some cause us considerable concern. They include substantial gas and electricity plants off Partingdale Lane. The former was withdrawn and the latter refused permission – but Harbour Energy has just appealed against the latter decision, so that threat remains.

And Barnet’s draft Local Plan includes a proposal for a large leisure hub in the middle of Barnet Playing Fields – which are designated Green Belt – despite similar facilities being available for community use in two nearby schools.

The Society watches such cases closely. We’re strengthened by being longstanding members of the LGBC, and of its sister organisation, the Council for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE). Several of our Committee Members are actively involved with the LGBC: Derek Epstein is its Membership Secretary, Simon Watson manages its website and I’m on its Executive Council. Derek and I contributed to ‘Safe Under Us’?.

Posted on by

Victory for New Barnet residents over Victoria Quarter development

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on by — 7 Comments

Help us save the grand old lady of Lyonsdown Road

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

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

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

Abbeytown Ltd

Martyn Gerrard House

197 Ballards Lane

London N3 1LP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on by

Green Belt reprieve from Mill Hill power plant proposals

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on by

New special needs school approved in Moxon Street office block

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on by — 1 Comment

Sunset View win at appeal vindicates Council and Barnet Society persistence

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sunset View resident Bill Foster commented,

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

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

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

Posted on by — 6 Comments

Majority of Barnet Society members oppose new autistic school in Moxon Street

The Barnet Society has consulted its members about the current planning application to convert a former office block into a school for pupils with Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD). 83% of respondents opposed the application, and only 6% supported it. We have therefore decided to object to it.

The Society does so with some reluctance. We would welcome a new school of this kind in Chipping Barnet – but not on a site that’s so confined that the only playground for 90 pupils is on the roof and one small balcony. Torn between the undoubted needs of the pupils and the serious weaknesses in the design, we considered the case important enough to consult our membership.

The response rate was nearly 17%, unusually high for a survey of this kind. A total of 66 responded: 55 wanted us to object, and only 4 said we should support the application. With this clear mandate, therefore, the Society has submitted its objection to the proposal.

It is important that we explain our reasons to readers. They can be summarised as follows:

1. Vehicular movement is unsatisfactory. The school’s 9 buses and 9-10 parents’ cars would all arrive and depart at similar times. When school closes around 3-5pm, Moxon Street is busy with traffic. The additional vehicles would cause serious local congestion.

2. Minibuses and taxis would stack around the building’s single-lane slip road to drop off and pick up pupils, with private cars required to use Moxon Street car park. This management problem would be exacerbated by the very wide age range and sometimes challenging behaviours of pupils.

3. Permanent staff would use nearby public car parks. But staff visiting for only a few hours would find the shortage of on-site parking very inconvenient and time-wasting, especially for those needing to carry equipment.

4. The façade shows little of the colour and imagination expected of a 21st-century school. The proportions of the sloping rooftop and entrance are clumsy; features such as the sports hall “box” could have been treated with higher quality materials or colour; and materials generally are basic and cheap.

5. The external environment and facades would offer disappointingly little “greening”.

6. The long internal corridors with no natural daylight could be oppressive for children, and result in lights being on all day and high energy costs. The internal group rooms appear to have no glazed panels, which would be claustrophobic.

7. The area of the rooftop playground is only about 20% of the DfE’s minimum recommendation for a school of this size and type. This causes us great concern, particularly in a school with pupils whose ages range from 5 to 19 – and are therefore unable to share different-sized play facilities, and with behaviours that are often solitary and challenging – and so require more personal space than other children.

 

8. Not only is the outdoor play tiny for the number of pupils – even if they access it in shifts – it would be sadly short of greenery and views except of the sky. Given the proven benefits of a rich outdoor environment for all children, and especially for those with ASD, our concern is all the greater. Some wonderful outdoor environments have been created for schools and nurseries in recent years – and some imaginative rooftop playgrounds – but this would not be one of them.

9. There is no clear strategy for giving the children access to off-site green spaces and play facilities to supplement the shortage on site.

10. The school would overlook habitable rooms of nearby dwellings in Hornbeam Court & Laburnham Close.

11. We’re not convinced that the search for an alternative site has been sufficiently thorough or smart. To take just one example, Grasvenor Infant School, which we understand is closing soon and has good outdoor play space, has not been considered.

We believe the proposed site is fundamentally unsuitable for 90 all-age pupils with ASD. To succeed, substantial design improvements would be essential. Otherwise we’re concerned that the premises would become an enduring problem for staff, pupils and parents/carers, leading to high operating costs, unhappy users and ultimately failure.

You still have an opportunity to register your own comments: public consultation is open until Friday 28 January 2022. The planning application reference is 21/6488/FUL, and you can find it here .  On the Documents page, the Design and Access Statement gives an overview of the scheme.

Posted on by — 1 Comment

Alston Road threatened by new permitted development apartment block blight

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

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

Posted on by — 3 Comments

Goodbye to our Green Belt?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

Hertsmere’s draft Local Plan can be found at:

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

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

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

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

 

Posted on by

The Lyon roared – but the developer is biting back

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on by

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 — 1 Comment

Rambles round Barnet – enjoy them while you can!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on by

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

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

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

Posted on by

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

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

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

Posted on by — 5 Comments

Spires sold to property investor specialising in converting commercial buildings into housing

A property development company specialising in office-to-residential conversions has bought the Spires shopping centre and its five-acre site between Barnet High Street and Stapylton Road for £28 million.

Continue reading Spires sold to property investor specialising in converting commercial buildings into housing

Posted on by — 2 Comments

New Barnet to lead the way with borough’s first zero waste food and flowers market

Barnet Council has given the go ahead for the forecourts of four businesses in Leicester Road, New Barnet, to become the site of a ground-breaking zero waste market selling produce assembled and made from surplus food, flowers, and other recycled materials.

Continue reading New Barnet to lead the way with borough’s first zero waste food and flowers market

Posted on by — 3 Comments

Discovering how historic New Barnet villa provided care for unmarried mothers and babies

A hunt is on for women, children and former staff who might be able to unlock memories of one of the less publicised roles of 33 Lyonsdown Road, New Barnet, the listed Victorian villa that is under the threat of demolition.

Continue reading Discovering how historic New Barnet villa provided care for unmarried mothers and babies

Posted on by

Locally listed landmark at risk

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

Continue reading Locally listed landmark at risk

Posted on by

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

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

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

Posted on by — 6 Comments

Barnet Council urged to prepare for possible redevelopment of Spires shopping centre

Critical questions about the future of the town centre will have to be addressed by Barnet Council if plans go ahead to replace much of the Spires with blocks of flats.

Continue reading Barnet Council urged to prepare for possible redevelopment of Spires shopping centre

Posted on by

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

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

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

Posted on by

Shutters down and closed shop doors in Barnet High Street

Only around 20 shops and retail outlets are still open for business along the entire length of Barnet High Street during the second week of the tightening squeeze being imposed by the coronavirus lockdown.

Shoppers are few and far between and the only other sign of activity has been two workmen — complete with face masks, and at a safe distance — adding the final touches to the pavement widening.

Continue reading Shutters down and closed shop doors in Barnet High Street