HIGH BARNET STATION CAR PARK PLANNING APPLICATION (25/2671/FUL)
AN APPRAISAL BY BARNET RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION
1. This appraisal follows an examination of key supporting documents in the application. Not featured is a critique of the17 views provided in the Townscape and Visual Appraisal documents (in 3 parts) of which several are clearly chosen to minimise the visual impact of the tall buildings.
2. The Design
a) The 283 flats are only between one and 4sqm above minimum space standards, though about half are just 1sqm larger. Some 75 flats are single aspect facing west, raising issues of noise, heat and ventilation. There are concerns whether room sizes and other aspects of the internal layout of flats are compliant, but these are not addressed here.
b) The buildings have relatively small windows resulting in a façade of extensive brickwork, creating an institutional feel. The ‘clip on’ balconies are though the dominant feature and make far worse the appearance of an already unappealing façade. Not only are ‘clip on’ balconies unattractive, but they can also become an eyesore as residents use them for storage, something that is most likely given the small flat interiors. This is an extremely prominent spot and high quality architecture should be paramount, but it is not. In and just north of Whetstone some half dozen medium to high rise blocks have been built in recent years. What they have in common is extensive use of glass including larger windows and recessed balconies. At worst the appearance of these buildings is acceptable, and some may be judged to be quite attractive. At the very least the station design should have taken a lead from these buildings regarding the appearance of the fundamental features.
3. Daylight and sunlight assessment
Daylight is claimed to be adequate or better for all the flats and there appears to be no reason to disagree with that. Sunlight is recognised as poor for many flats facing north and east where they are affected by the presence of the LU staff building Abrams House.
4. Noise and Vibration assessment.
a) States the site falls into ‘medium risk’ for all facades during the day and ‘high risk’ during the night (3.13), though it is claimed this would not prohibit the development as good acoustic design and processes will be followed to reduce sound levels to as low as possible (3.15). All units should be provided with a mechanical and ventilation heat recovery system with cooling (7.6) but due to high average and maximum noise levels the ventilation strategy will rely on mechanical ventilation only – all windows should remain closed … though residents will have the option to open windows, whilst noting that sound levels will be slightly elevated (8.7). Balconies across the site will experience noise levels that are above the upper limit of 5.5db (8.10).
b) This assessment makes it clear that noise will be an ever present problem and will inflict limitations on the living experience in the flats, only ameliorated by constant use of mechanical ventilation and keeping windows closed. This should not be an acceptable way for people to live.
5. Overheating and thermal comfort
The assessment indicates rooms on higher floors will struggle with heat gain. For these rooms the suggestion is to add external shading and a larger MVHR unit (4.8). This acknowledgement that heat gain could be a major problem is not something potential occupiers should be faced with.
6. Transport Assessment Pt 1
Indicates that future residents are likely to be in categories described as ‘students and graduates’ and ‘family challenged’ (the latter are 9% across the Borough but not currently present in any numbers in High Barnet or Barnet Vale wards). These are recognised as groups with a reduced propensity for car use. It is difficult to envisage that many students would occupy the flats as there is no demand in or within easy reach of the area for student accommodation, and graduates are unlikely to afford to purchase flats. So, the expectation for the privately owned flats must be that they will overwhelmingly be purchased by ‘buy-to-let’ landlords. The prospect for a stable community with lengthy occupancies looks remote. The presence of ‘family challenged’ residents does raise concerns about the potential for anti-social behaviour in the station environs.
7. Transport Assessment Pt 2
a) The identified key destinations omit Barnet Hospital. This is important as staff, patients and visitors, many of whom will be elderly or have mobility limitations, will need to access the northbound bus stop, a steep walk now, which would be more difficult as a result of moving the pedestrian crossing further south. Securing a commitment from TfL to move the northbound bus stop close to the pedestrian crossing should be essential.
b) The proposed improvements include a new footpath to the south side of the slip road and a ‘woodland walk’ with seating to replace the existing ramp up to Meadway. The former is to be welcomed but the latter has the potential to create problems. Though improved lighting is promised the ‘woodland walk’ is simply a rebadging as it is there already and the steep climb up to Meadway will remain. The provision of seating along the ramp superficially seems appealing but could backfire. The ramp has for some years been used by beggars and suspected drug dealers. The seating will be an invitation to these people and others who may wish to ‘hang around’. The scheme should be factoring in safety, not weakening it.
c) Though a major issue no figures have been provided for drop off/pick up activity. The arrangements will be formalised with provision of marked-out waiting bays but essentially will be no different to the informal arrangements happening currently. At peak collection times the area can become very congested. This is bound to be exacerbated as people who previously parked at the station will no longer be able to do so and find alternative means of getting home too difficult. This will be especially true after dark. The slip road will as now not be wide enough for two vehicles to pass, a situation that will be exacerbated not just by greater use by station users at peak times but also by the additional traffic destined for the flats such as delivery vans and taxis. On occasions there is currently stacking back of vehicles out onto the A1000, which is likely to increase. If the Highways Authorities were to demand this be stopped it could result in cessation of the drop-off facility.
d) An issue not fully addressed is that of displacement parking. It is recognised that to prevent commuter parking in the wider area there will have to be more extensive CPZ coverage and parking restrictions around Greenhill Parade. But more difficult to control will be the use of Fitzjohn Avenue car park which is already used by a number of station commuters. If this car park becomes wholly occupied by station commuters staff and students at Barnet College will be displaced, as will shop staff and shoppers at the lower end of the High St. As with Greenhill Parade, the knock-on effect of parking changes could have a negative impact on trade. It is also possible that a proportion of displaced commuters will simply drive to a station further down the Northern Line, which would negate the claimed savings on emissions and congestion following the elimination of parking at the station.
e) The main destination for residents of the site seeking convenience shopping will be Greenhill Parade. But the route there will be tortuous as pedestrians will have to cross six roads to get there, of which only two have pedestrian crossings. For a site already relatively isolated this route to the nearest shops is inadequate.
f) All public parking at the station will be withdrawn except the provision of accessible spaces for blue badge holders. Given the difficulty of accessing the station this provision is a necessity, but it fails to provide any fall back. If all the spaces are full there will be nowhere anywhere near the station to park, so journeys will have to be abandoned. So, whilst more accessible spaces will be provided than now, the provision will be less reliable as currently there is an option to use the ordinary parking bays.
g) Section 5 includes a lengthy analysis of existing car park use and argues there will be adequate alternative means of reaching the station. Whist this will be true for many users there are locations in our area where resident will have major difficulty accessing the station, e.g. Hadley, parts of Arkley and the north end of Barnet Vale ward where buses do not exist and walking is too far to be realistic. Cycling in this hilly and traffic congested area will only be suitable for a minority.
h) All of the above analysis leads to a conclusion that the proposed changes to compensate for the loss of the car park are way short of what is needed. More radical solutions such as an escalator to Meadway, a much wider slip road to allow two vehicles to pass easily, and a northbound bus diverted to serve the station forecourt have all been dismissed. What is offered are minor changes that will not solve the fundamental access difficulties and have the potential to make the problems significantly worse.
8. Design and Access Pt 1
a) Claims this will be “an exciting, well-connected, sustainable residential neighbourhood”. This is at odds with 6 above which recognised that many occupants are likely to be transitory, and with 7(e) which raises the difficulty of accessing shops. Tellingly, also stated is that “due to the separation from the town centre, created by topography and infrastructure, and green spaces, the site has the potential to create its own identity”. This is an unwitting admission that the site will indeed be isolated, which is not an appealing prospect for people who live there.
b) The assessment of nearby building heights typographies omits mention of St John Church, probably intentionally so as views of the prominent tower of this iconic building will be compromised by the proposed 11 storey block.
c) Identifies that in the immediate area there is a mixed age demographic but further away there is a shift to an older population of 60 or more. Indeed, High Barnet has a higher proportion of older people than any other ward in the Borough, whilst probably having the worst station for pedestrian access than any other station in London. This emphasises the need for much better means of accessing the station.
9. Design and Access Pt 3
a) This document describes the consultation meetings with officers, Planning Committee Chairman and public events. It includes some extraordinary conclusions and assertions which many will find astonishing:
1/25 The Mayor’s Design Advocates said “justification for the location of the tall building was understood”
1/25 Barnet’s Design Review Panel said the 10 storey height ^could be justified with exceptional architectural quality”
Meeting with planning officers on 5.2 25 officers expressed support for the increase to 11 storeys
Public exhibition November 24 found “Majority of responses supported the principle of development – concerns over parking and height”.
Public exhibition February 25 found “Some supporting development. Welcome for improvements to the station appearance, accessibility and safety”.
Public meeting March 25 claims “design team commended for improvements, notably the footpath along Barnet Hill. Concerns expressed re height, parking and drop-off provision”.
These statements avoid recognition at the immense anger expressed at all the public events. The aspects claimed here as attracting public support are relative minor ancillary features of the development, and as already discussed above fall well short of what is needed.
b) “Keeping to seven storeys only achieves 255 homes” – that is 28 less than in the application. The argument that this should not happen is that this goes against the London Plan which states that “Boroughs should optimise the potential on all suitable sites”. The interpretation here appears to be that “optimise” means “maximise” which it certainly does not. The logic of this approach would be that all sites should strive for the tallest blocks that could feasibly be built. Optimise means taking account of all relevant matters such as the visual impact and broader capacity of the site including provision of supporting infrastructure. 300 homes was nothing more than an indicative figure for the site, not a target, whilst its unsuitability for blocks no higher than seven storeys was clearly expressed in the recently adopted Local Plan. There are no new circumstances justifying an increase in height.
c) There are some very questionable and nonsensical assertions that take us into the realms of fantasy in seeking to justify the 11 storey block : “a marker building that will improve legibility of the station entrance”; “unique distinctive mass to celebrate the arrival to and from High Barnet station”; “distinctive building of civic character”; “provide prestige to the site”; “key marker building to improve existing challenges for wayfinding along Barnet Hill”; “addressing the challenging typology to lessen the impact of height on more sensitive views”. All this to try and justify what is no more than an undistinguished, and arguably quite ugly tower block, on a prominent site in an attractive residential area where there are no building higher than four stores in any direction. One assertion that is correct is “expansive panoramic views”, which will be experiences by residents of the top floors. Of course, this also means that residents living over a wide area will have a “panoramic view” of the tower block, when at the moment the prominent feature on the skyline is St John’s Church.
d) Removing the top three or four floors of the 11 storey block would overcome the fundamental objection to the scheme regarding height. No other options are explored that might re-provide many of the 28 flats that would be lost, perhaps because of the grossly misplaced opinion of the developers that the 11 storey building would be an iconic and positive addition to the High Barnet landscape.
9. Design and Access Pt 5
The developers indicate they are aware of the radical appearance of the scheme in relation to the prevailing local built environment and seek to justify this with comparisons to other developments, though none are close to or within sight of the development site. They refer to Intaglio House whilst failing to mention that it is only four storeys and largely invisible being tucked away behind the High St. Likewise, Dolls Valley - though a large development featuring modern architecture it is set much lower in the valley than the proposed development and largely obscured by housing along Mays Lane. Using Woodside Park is an odd comparison as it is well away from the locality. All buildings within sight of the development site are 1930s or earlier, so an evident clash of styles is unavoidable.
10. Planning Statement
This essentially summarises the contents of the document above, though some assertions seeking to justify the scheme unintentionally expose its evident defects:
9.175 “developments must respond to the surrounding character and context”… “through the proposed architecture, public realm and materiality of the proposals. Takes architectural cues from the station building and the local surroundings”. If only this were true, then we would have a development radically different to what is on offer.
9.183 “The proposed development will be experienced as a series of brick buildings … the proposed height and massing will also strongly define the site as a destination and improve the experience of arrival”. This acknowledgement that brick and density will dominate reflects our critique that we consider the buildings will be a blot on the landscape. And if defining the site as a ‘destination’ is the most notable feature that says little for its true impact.
9.197 -9.201 Discusses at length justification for the buildings exceeding the seven storey limit specified in the Local Plan.
a) Quoted is the London Plan which says that if a tall building is not in a location identified as appropriate that does not mean that it is unacceptable, and a judicial review on a site in West London is quoted in support. But in that instance the council had designated what localities were suitable for tall building whist not specifically ruling them out elsewhere. The Arnos Grove station appeal is appended as further supporting evidence. Here it was recognised that under NPPF guidance and local policies the site would not be suitable for tall buildings, but the Inspector concluded that these policies should be overruled by other policies which require optimising site capacity through a ‘design led approach’, which for High Barnet station the applicant describes as ‘addressing the visual, environmental, functional and cumulative’ impacts, and argues that “to achieve a high quality design through the design-led approach, it is necessary to deliver higher density development which includes tall buildings”.
b) We strongly refute these arguments. Unlike the localities quoted above, a review of the High Barnet station site undertaken for inclusion in the Local Plan was specific in saying the site was unsuitable for tall buildings, a conclusion endorsed by the Planning Inspectorate and the London Mayor. Addressing tall buildings was one of the most controversial aspects to the Local Plan and was agreed only after very careful consideration. Overturning this for the station site would completely undermine the credibility of the Local Plan. And if tall buildings are allowed on this site anywhere in the Borough is likely to be fair game as developers would undoubtedly use this as a precedent. The case also fails on the claim that the building will be high quality as a result of the ‘design led approach which we strongly refute as argued elsewhere in this document.
11. Conclusion
In the “Summary of Proposals” document the applicants claim, “the buildings are not considered to have an unacceptable impact on the surrounding townscape and “height has been carefully considered with the visual, functional, environmental and cumulative impacts which has resulted in an optimal composition of tall buildings of the highest design and architectural quality”. We utterly reject these assertions. As we have demonstrated, this development is an unattractive and poorly designed blot on the landscape, with poor living conditions for residents and increased difficulty for those wishing to use the station. We are not opposed to the redevelopment of this site for housing, but the people of High Barnet and future residents of the development deserve something much better than this.
Gordon Massey
14th August 2025