MEETING WITH THERESA VILLIERS (TV) AND LISA RUTTER (LR) ABOUT NLBP DEVELOPMENT - 11 JUNE

Introduction

TV strongly opposed the NLBP development – especially the addition of over 1,000 flats. She is happy to work with residents to campaign against the development.

The previous project was rejected by Barnet Council twice and the Mayor of London. However, the Secretary of State (SOS) for Housing approved it.

TV was horrified of the 85% increase of housing and the scale of the tower blocks.

We asked the following questions:

Qu1. Will Comer make a completely new application even though they had the previous application approved?

TV: Comer will need to go through the whole process as they did previously ie consultation with Barnet Council, then the Mayor of London and then opportunity to appeal. The opportunity for residents to raise concerns and oppose plan is during the consultation meeting with Barnet.

LR: Andrew Dillon is the planning officer if we want to contact him. The new application is only for the additional flats, we cannot reverse the decision for the previous application. This process will not invalidate the original plans. Whilst residents could reiterate and highlight the concerns of the previous applications it is important to focus on providing planning reasons for refusal to the new plans.

Qu2. Why do Comer think the increase in flats will be approved?

TV: There is a new London Housing Plan which has been approved since the last request. The Mayor (Sadiq Khan) has made significant changes in comparison to the previous plan which was approved by Boris Johnson. To manage the pressure of additional homes, some significant changes have been made i.e., higher buildings and greater density increased.

The London Plan has made it easier for Comer to add more flats.

The Barnet Housing Plan follows on from the London Plan – Barnet has reduced its housing target. TV will try and find out targets for us. The SOS has agreed the provision to give Boroughs the permission to refresh their own tall buildings policy.

TV has advised that we speak to planning officer to regarding how Barnet will strengthen their Housing Plan. LR has confirmed that the Policy and Resources Committee is looking at the local plan. It is understood that Barnet has surpassed its housing target but we are waiting for details so we can assess the direct correlation between targets and new developments.

Qu3. If the Council and Mayor refuse the application and it goes to SOS for the decision, how can we ensure we do not get the same outcome as before.

TV: we need to start the battle again and try to beat Comer at local level. We need to give valid reasons under planning law as to why we do not agree with development.

We need many people to write and complain about the development.

Qu4. What support can the residents get from the Council.

LR: When the planning application is received , residents will have the option to comment individually during the consultation period and also the option of submitting a petition. The more people that voice their concerns the better.

Next Steps:

• Encourage individuals to write to Council once they make their planning application (end June). Ask individuals to include 3/4 planning points on why they object. We will provide the points. We can draw this from TV website.

• Need to raise profile and ask individuals to send letter to Barnet Council planning portal.

• Contact – Barnet Times, add to newsletters, flyers etc.

• Once we have dates of planning meeting we should get a group of people to attend and arrange next steps.

"I've published an article on the Telegraph online today about why the shock result in the Chesham and Amersham by-election means that the Government should drop their controversial planning reform proposals:"

Boris Johnson must cut housing targets for the overcrowded South after by-election defeat

If we are to live up to our manifesto commitments, we must listen carefully to the message voters sent us about housebuilding and planning

Despite an excellent candidate, there was a massive swing against the Conservatives in the Chesham and Amersham by-election. We need to reflect on what caused that dramatic result. I urge Ministers to use this as an opportunity to rethink their approach to planning reform.

Their Planning for the Future white paper proposes big changes, including removal of local decision-making in areas designated for growth. Even outside those areas, many development policies currently determined locally would be centralised and set nationally instead; removing important safeguards used by local planning committees to prevent overdevelopment and protect their local environment.

Moreover, whilst the infamous algorithm for calculating housing targets was abandoned for most areas following pressure from Conservative back bench MPs, current targets remain very high, especially in the south east. There continues to be intense pressure for development in my Chipping Barnet constituency, with more and more big new schemes coming forward or being expanded. This picture is replicated elsewhere.

There is consensus on the need for new homes, but these need to be delivered in partnership with local communities rather than forced on them.

Only a few weeks ago, the Government announced that it would set a world leading target on nature recovery and protecting wildlife habitats – a Net Zero for Nature. That becomes much harder to achieve if more and more green field land goes under concrete. The Government is very clear on its commitment to the green belt – which of course I strongly welcome – but that still leaves millions of acres of agricultural and other green field land with no special protection and ever more vulnerable to development.

This by election result should pave the way for a reduction in housing targets for the London suburbs and the south east. We need a fairer distribution of new homes across the country, rather than seeking to cram so many thousands more into the crowded south. There needs to be a stronger focus on brownfield sites in urban inner city areas. And greater efforts should be made to ensure that developers build the homes for which they already have consent, rather than ‘landbanking’ it and coming back to demand permission to concrete over more sites.

The Planning Bill due soon provides the opportunity for a national debate about how we deliver the right number of homes in the right places. The by-election this week shows how highly people value the quality of their local environment. We all had a reminder of this when lockdown kept us in our home neighbourhoods and our daily permitted exercise helped us rediscover the precious open spaces on our doorstep.

The impact they have on the built environment is one of the most tangible legacies left by any Government. The Conservative manifesto contains stronger environmental promises than any Government has ever made before. If we are to live up to those commitments, we need to listen carefully to the message about housebuilding and planning which has just been sent to us by the voters of Chesham and Amersham.

From: Ben Knock <Ben.Knock@becg.com>

Date: 30 June 2021 at 11:51:27 BST

To: Claire Guppy

Subject: RE: Revised proposals for the development of North London Business Park



Dear Claire,

Thank you for your email. Your comments have been captured and added to the consultation feedback.

In your email you raise a number of points and I have responded to each of them below:

1. Height/ proximity of the buildings

In terms of height, the new buildings will range from 2- to 13-storeys with the tallest elements located furthest from residential and other sensitive areas. As such, there is no proposed increase in the number of storeys to buildings near Howard Close so the tallest element remains 3-storeys so similar in scale to the housing on Howard Close.

The 3-storey element will be based 3.6m from the nearest properties on Howard Close but will be in a gable condition (no facing windows) preventing overlooking. The closest building to Howard Close that has increased in height is 35m away from residential properties and will rise to 13-storeys.

2. Density/ amenities

Comer Homes appreciates that the revised proposals increase the density of the scheme. However, both the Adopted London Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework have put an increased focus on housing delivery on brownfield sites such as this.

Comer Homes will be providing a new secondary school on-site, and also re-providing the nursery facility to help accommodate the growing population. The team will also be allocating a considerable amount of money via the Community Infrastructure Levy and S106 agreement to mitigate the impact of the development. This will be delivered to Barnet Council who will determine where this is most needed but typically these levies are used to cover the following areas:

- Road and footpath improvements;

- Tree planting;

- New or improved play space and facilities;

- Community safety measures (eg CCTV, lighting);

- New or improved cycling facilities;

- Traffic calming measures;

- Improvements to school grounds and buildings;

- The improvement of local facilities such as libraries, community centres and sports halls.

On top of CIL contributions, Comer Homes will be delivering a number of new services and transport improvements, including:

• Improved junction access on Brunswick Park Road

• 6 to 8 car club spaces

• Comer Homes own resident bus service

• New bus route through the site

Providing these services should help mitigate the impact of new residents on existing transport facilities. The CIL contributions will also enable Barnet Council to improve and expand these services so they can accommodate new residents.

3. Traffic

We are currently assessing the impact on the local road network and will be providing funds via the CIL contributions to mitigate any impact. We will also work with Barnet Council’s Transport officers to see if any additional measures are required.

4. Additional observations

We are sorry to hear you had issues with the audio during the webinar. The team are aware that there were some issues during the first session, although, these were rectified for the second. You can find a recording of both sessions on the website.

Please get in touch with any unanswered questions you have, and we’d be happy to provide you with the necessary info.

Regards,

Ben

[Below is Claire's email to Comer Homes]

Dear Sir / Madam

Please find attached a letter in relation to the above on behalf of residents living in the neighbouring roads Howard Close and Brunswick Park Gardens N11

Kind regards

Claire Guppy

[Below is the letter to Comer Homes which Claire attached to her email]

Built Environment Communications Group

Comer Homes Project Team

comerhomes@becg.com

11^th May 2021

RE: REVISED PROPOSALS FOR NORTH LONDON BUSINESS PARK

Dear Sir / Madam,

This letter is written in relation to the revised proposals for North London Business Park (‘NLBP’) on behalf of residents living in the neighbouring roads - Howard Close (‘HC’) and Brunswick Park Gardens (‘BPG’) N11. It is submitted by email as per the guidance given in the Comer Homes (‘CH’) online consultation in respect of the same.

We wish to object to the revised plans for NLBP on the following grounds:

1. Height / proximity of the buildings

The revised proposals increase the height of the tallest buildings from 9 to as much as 13 storeys.

In the ‘Height Strategy’ (screen 5) contained in the online virtual consultation, reference is made to there being ‘no additional height near existing homes’ and in the online webinars held by CH on 25^th April 2021 and 5^th May 2021 and attended by some residents living in HC and BPG, it was stated that CH are being sympathetic, not increasing the height of buildings along the perimeter and that the 13 storey buildings will be overlooking the railway where the land is lower. However, the proposed increase in height to Block 1D (see again screen 5 ‘diagram showing increased heights’) will not be seen against the background cityscape, or be centrally located within NLBP, rather it will be along the perimeter and directly in front of homes at top of HC. Further, the proximity of both Block 1D and 1E to residents living at the top of HC (1E situated directly alongside the top of HC), combined with the proposed additional height to Block 1D, appears to afford no sympathy or consideration to the harm, and impact to residents living at the top of HC along with overbearing, overshadowing and potential loss of light in their back gardens. The proposed increase in height to Block 1D will affect the view for all residents living on HC, particularly those at the top and raise issues of privacy.

The ‘Height Strategy’ (screen 5) also states the ‘additional height will not alter the townscape’ but the proposed additional height will inevitably affect and impact the overall landscape – a suburban area predominantly made up of homes of just one or two storeys.

In addition to the aforesaid, CH refer to an increase in the height of the buildings but have provided no estimated dimensions. The only available guidance is the ‘diagram showing increased heights’ (screen 5), which gives no specific information or dimensions. What is apparent from the diagram is that the existing buildings in the area will be further dwarfed by the proposed additional height and the visual amenity greatly impacted.

2. Density / amenities

The revised proposals increase the amount of homes from approximately 1,350 homes to 2,500. 2,500 new homes will result in thousands more residents – a rough calculation based on 2 adults and 2 children per unit, (though it could be higher), equates to approximately 10,000 people. Notwithstanding the fact the revised proposals purportedly allow retail business and community floor space and ‘space for additional public services, such as medical facilities’ (slide 4), adding over 1,000 new homes is not in accordance with the population density in the local area and will pose a massive additional strain on the local community with insufficient medical facilities, nurseries, shops, dentists and community facilities.

The proposed ‘Transport Improvements’ (screen 8) refer to ‘CH own resident bus service’ and a ‘new bus route through the site’ but it is doubtful this will alleviate the strain on local public transport generated by the increased density of population. What is being proposed is essentially a new town, without the infrastructure to cope with it

3. Traffic

As above, the revised proposals increase the amount of homes from approximately 1,350 to 2,500 with each home being allocated roughly 0.85 parking spaces per unit (screen 8). The increase in cars (and other vehicles) and traffic generated by the revised proposals will have a huge impact on local residents. Brunswick Park Rd N11 is already a busy road with residents living on and close to it, especially near New Southgate Cemetery (situated on it) already regularly experiencing congestion and traffic jams. Further, during weekdays and school term times at around 3-3.30pm there is often congestion and queues of traffic generated from St Andrews the Apostle Secondary School around the entrance / exit point at Brunswick Park Road and NLBP. The addition of thousands of new residents with vehicles will have a serious impact on traffic and local residents. It is highly doubtful that a traffic light system will improve issues, but instead generate long queues of traffic and cause more congestion. The noise and disturbance generated from the thousands of additional cars and traffic will also greatly impact residents on HC and BPG.

4. Additional comments / observations

Whilst the virtual online consultation refers to the provision of much-needed homes in Barnet, no information has been given as to the provision / percentage of affordable housing which Barnet needs.

The revised proposals (screen 9/10) refer to the development being implemented in phases and propose a timeline of construction work from 2022-2029 which amounts to 7 years of construction work for local residents.

There are lots of established, beautiful trees in NLBP and Canada Geese that return and live there every year – no information has been provided as to how and whether they will be protected.

So far, the consultation process has been inadequate. There has been poor sound during the webinars that have been held by CH and many questions remain unanswered. No information has been provided on any further meetings and it would be wholly inappropriate to proceed with an application for planning in June 2021 with so many unanswered questions - there is a danger that changes will be made further down the line, that have not been consulted on.

NLBP Webinar 28-Apr-2021

29 April 2021 at 19:20

To: webinar@becg.com

Cc: EBRA Chairman <ebra.chairman@eastbar.net>

I asked the following questions, and as far as I'm aware, NONE of them was answered.

1: You say it will not be a gated community, so can we external residents use it as a cut-through from Brunswick Park Road to Oakleigh Road South?

2: How can you possibly say that a 4-storey increase from 9 to 13 storeys is an insignificant minimal change? It's over 40% higher!

3: You say there will be a "robust management strategy" to ensure on-street parking does not impede cyclists and pedestrians.

But as you're only planning 17 parking spaces for every 20 homes, what will you do to protect the surrounding roads, which were severely blighted when the site was used for Council offices?

Particularly concerned about Ashbourne Avenue's pedestrian entrance, people may try to park there or Weirdale Avenue and walk in?

4: How many "affordable" homes will there be? WHERE will they be?

5: You say there is a 7-storey slope from Weirdale to the lowland area of the site, so that mitigates the buildings' height. But you are proposing several TWELVE and THIRTEEN storey buildings, so how will they be mitigated? Will they have 5 or 6 storeys underground??

6: How many minibuses will you need to transport thousands of residents to the tube and rail stations?

For #4 the response was "we don't know yet, we're waiting for Barnet Council's instructions".

Rob White

Secretary & Treasurer, East Barnet Residents' Association

Email: rob@eastbar.net

[NB: EBRA received no response from BECG]