Former MP Theresa Villiers has thrown her weight behind the campaign to save the park-and-ride facility at High Barnet station.
TfL is proposing to build over the car park at the station and remove all parking except for a handful of drop-off and blue badge spaces. They have applied for planning permission to construct high rise blocks of flats on the site, including one of eleven storeys.
Theresa Villiers said “During my time as MP, I fought against the plan to build over High Barnet station car park when it was first brought forward in 2019. For many people, the car park is a vital means for them to access the station and get on to the public transport system. Losing this park-and-ride facility will be especially hard on people with impaired mobility who find the steep slopes leading to the station very hard to tackle. Women’s safety will also be compromised if they have to wait alone at bus stops in the dark.”
“The buildings proposed are excessively tall and completely wrong for this iconic location which marks the entry to Barnet. The quality of housing proposed is poor, crammed into high rise blocks between the railway and the A1000.”
“Barnet Council have extended the consultation period for the development until Friday 19th September. I’m encouraging everyone to have their say and back the campaign against these plans.”
Have your say in one of three ways:
- on the Council’s planning portal - search for reference number 25/2671/FUL) and use the Comments tab;
- email [email protected]
- write to Sam Gerstein, Planning and Building Control, Barnet Council , 2 Bristol Avenue, Colindale, NW9 4EW.
If you are emailing or posting your comments, please include the application reference number 25/2671/FUL clearly at the top plus your name, address and postcode.
Key points to mention:
· The scheme is an overdevelopment. Its height and mass are completely inappropriate for the character of the area. It is out of scale with nearby buildings. It will disrupt Barnet’s iconic skyline. The Barnet Local Plan specifies buildings should not exceed seven storeys on this site, but the developers are asking for an eleven storey tower block. The design of the blocks is poor.
· The quality of the housing proposed for the development is inadequate. Many flats are “single aspect” meaning there are likely to be problems with ventilation, overheating and lack of sunlight. The developer is trying to squeeze too many flats on to the site to make up for the high cost of dealing with steep slopes and unstable ground.
· The loss of the car park will be make it harder for people to use public transport because it will be more difficult to get to the station. People with disabilities and impaired mobility will be especially badly hit. Removal of the car park will also negatively impact on women’s security. The scheme does virtually nothing to improve the integration of the station with local bus services.
Further information can be found on the Barnet Society website here.
Theresa Villiers has sent the following objection to Barnet Council setting our key reasons why the planning application to build over the car park should be refused.
Objection to planning application 25/2671/FUL High Barnet Underground Station Station Approach, Barnet, EN5 5RP
I am writing to object to the above planning application and express my strong opposition to what is proposed by Places for London/TfL. I do so as a local resident and regular user of the station. During my time as MP for Chipping Barnet, I discussed these matters with many constituents who were firmly against building over the car park.
Height, massing, and density
What is proposed by PfL/TfL would be a massive overdevelopment. The blocks would be completely inconsistent with the scale and character of this location. They would be significantly taller than nearby existing buildings (almost all of which are no higher than two or three storeys) and would dominate this iconic location which marks the historic tree-lined entry to Barnet. They would break the skyline and detract from the long established pre-eminence of St John the Baptist church. The scheme would fundamentally alter the traditional townscape.
The Local Plan states that new development should respect and enhance existing character. It also specifies that buildings should not exceed seven storeys on this site. The application for permission to construct blocks of up to eleven storeys is therefore in direct conflict with adopted policy. It would set a damaging precedent and damage the credibility of the Local Plan.
This is an extremely prominent site and if new homes are constructed there, high quality architecture should be paramount. But the uniform building typology consisting of bulky monolithic blocks and obtrusive unvaried red brick make this an ugly and overbearing development, visible for miles around, and entirely inappropriate for this sensitive location. Attempting to match the red brick colour of Queen Elizabeth Girls’ School or Tudor Hall is a wholly inadequate means to try to ensure these new buildings are sensitive to the character of a neighbourhood with varying building typologies, styles, and brick colours. The application fails to live up to its claim to deploy high quality design as part of a design-led approach.
Loss of park-and-ride facility
This application would undermine policies in the Local Plan and the London Plan to promote sustainable transport. This scheme removes almost all parking at High Barnet station. This would mean the loss of an important park-and-ride facility which currently helps people get on to the public transport system.
In a suburban location at the end of the line, High Barnet serves a much wider area than stations in central London, meaning that thousands of its regular passengers live well beyond walking distance away. Scrapping parking facilities will make it far harder for these people to get to work, or to travel to see friends and family. So the scheme would reduce economic opportunities and increase social isolation.
Walking or cycling to the station involves tackling a steep hill. Loss of the car park will therefore have a particularly harsh impact on people with disabilities or impaired mobility, who will struggle with Barnet Hill. Wheelchair access to the station will become much harder. Pushing a wheelchair up the pedestrian ramp would be very very hard - impossible for anyone but the strongest and fittest. A few blue badge places will not provide an adequate substitute for access to a large car park in which disabled people can use regular bays when the blue badge spaces are full.
I am also seriously worried about the safety of women passengers. During my long involvement with the debate on the future of the station car park, many female residents have told me they would feel unsafe having to wait at bus stops alone, or walk long distances home, because they can no longer park.
Apart from a handful of blue badge spaces and seven drop-off bays, the only parking to survive in this scheme is for TfL staff. It is unfair and inconsistent of TfL to take active steps to prevent people using their cars to get to the station when they allow and enable their staff to do exactly that.
It also appears that the slip road into the station will not be wide enough for cars to pass one another. This will make pick-up and drop-off even more difficult and congested than they currently are, and lead to more tailbacks on to Barnet Hill. This is another example of TfL/PfL making it harder for people to access the public transport system and is not acceptable.
The assumption of the applicant that removal of parking bays will lead to increased use of active travel is not supported by evidence. It is just as likely to lead reduced work and social opportunities for people who can no longer get to the station by car.
Moreover, displaced cars will flood surrounding residential streets, worsening congestion and parking stress. This problem will be intensified by the failure to provide any parking spaces for the thousand or so people living in the proposed new blocks. More CPZs are not a solution. As shown by recent debates on proposed new controlled parking areas, many residents oppose these schemes and do not want to have to pay to park outside their homes.
No commitment to improved access to the station
Despite this being highlighted as important in all the consultations carried on this development, the scheme brought forward does not provide any significant improvements to public transport connectivity. High Barnet station is not well connected with the bus network. For example, the nearest northbound bus stop a steep climb away.
No promise has been made by TfL to improve bus services to and from the station. In my experience these are often infrequent and unreliable. There is no clear commitment by TfL in the application to moving the northbound bus stop closer to Station Approach, and they have ruled out bringing buses up to the station forecourt.
The proposed changes to the pedestrian walkway - one or two benches and some improved lighting – will make little difference in practice. As pointed out by the Barnet Residents Association, the changes might even lead to increased anti-social behaviour. PfL/TfL imply that addressing problems with the current path is one of the reasons to go ahead with their scheme. But that is tantamount to relying on TfL’s own neglect of their responsibilities to justify a controversial and unpopular planning application.
Poor housing standards and insufficient outdoor space
Squeezing 283 units into this site constrained on one side by the Northern Line and the other by the A1000 will inevitably lead to poor quality living conditions. PfL/TfL are sacrificing housing quality to try to make the development financially viable.
Their problems are likely to be intensified by the cost of dealing with steeply sloping topography and unstable ground conditions (as shown by the visibly sinking roadside). If this application is granted, there is an inevitable risk that the financial pressure caused by the engineering works needed to make the site safe and stable, will mean that housing quality is further eroded, or the applicants come back asking for an even denser taller scheme.
More than a third of the units will be single aspect. The London Plan discourages construction of such dwellings (especially north facing ones) because they can be hard to ventilate, they more likely to overheat, and have limited natural light. North facing single aspect flats in this development will have inadequate access to sunlight and south west facing flats will tend to overheat in summer and require costly mechanical ventilation and cooling measures. The fact that windows may need to be kept closed because of railway noise will worsen these issues.
The application would provide only very limited outdoor play space for children. The scheme does not enhance biodiversity or green infrastructure in any meaningful way. Nor does the size of unit match local circumstances, since over 80% will be one or two bed flats, as opposed to the three bedroom family homes that are most needed.
Pressure on local services
The Local Plan commits to ensuring growth is supported by infrastructure. I have spoken directly to GPs about their concerns about patient lists already being so big they are hard to cope with. Adding a population of nearly 1000 to the area would put additional pressure on already crowded GP surgeries. There is no certainty that GP capacity will be expanded in the area to accommodate the population increase.
Conclusion
I would urge the planning committee to reject this application because it contravenes Barnet and London planning policy. Removing the park-and-ride facility will significantly harm local access to public transport, particularly for people with impaired mobility. It will also have a negative impact on the safety and security of women returning home in the evening. The height, massing and bulk of the blocks of flats proposed are entirely inconsistent with the scale and character of this iconic entry into Barnet town centre. The quality of the housing provided will be poor.
TfL and Places for London should drop these plans and come back with a new scheme which retains the car park and delivers a smaller scale, higher quality development, on the land at the southern end of the site which is currently used for containers.
Kind regards
Theresa Villiers
