Christina’s Objections

Dear All,

Firstly, I would like to raise my concern that the pre consultation was held during a national pandemic.  The local community has not been able to meet in person to discuss and the only opportunity we have been given to voice our grave concern was in a zoom meeting, where we were all muted.  I strongly believe this consultation should be extended to allow the community to meet in person and I formally request an extension to the consultation period with the website updated accordingly​.

Please see below my main objections to the proposed development of the Finchley Memorial Community Green space; 

1. Loss of community green space

  • Why has this green space been deemed ‘surplus’ by CHP when the local community use it? The use for this land was discussed in length during the redevelopment of FMH back in 2010 and there are documents detailing this space’ continued use for the local community with the addition of a children’s play area and adult gym.  These promised amenities would have further enhanced an already very popular and frequently used space.  Unfortunately, this proposal has not been provided even though the approved landscaping details show these anticipated facilities. 
  • The proposed landscaping in the development is not adequate or comparable with the current use as a large open green space. This space is imperative to the community’s mental health and wellbeing, especially in light of the current circumstances.  The maintenance and protection of green spaces is mentioned regularly in the London Plan and also Barnet’s own Local Plan, so it is clearly very important and the proposed development completely violates this ethos.

2. Design and Character of the area, Scale and Massing 

  • The development would be contrary to Barnet’s Development Plan. The Core Strategy specially states: 

Most residential streets in Barnet, including Victorian and Edwardian terraces and interwar suburbs, follow a conventional perimeter block structure…This structure is a proven model of urban development and a fundamental element of good design….Infill development and flatted schemes in particular can weaken this relationship between building and street

In addition, the development would be overbearing and out of character 4 & 6 story blocks adjacent and opposite to 2 story Edwardian houses. How does this adhere to Policy DM01 of Barnet’s Local Plan (Core Strategy) planning policy – 

b. Development proposals should be based on an understanding of local characteristics. Proposals should preserve or enhance local character and respect the appearance, scale, mass, height and pattern of surrounding buildings, spaces and streets.

According to Barnet council, ‘ the Voice of the suburbs’, their aim is to’To protect and enhance the suburbs – to respect and enrich Barnet’s distinctive historic environment by protecting and enhancing heritage assets such as the high quality suburban character of townscapes and conservation areas’ (Barnet’s Local Plan, Core Strategy). This proposal does not enhance the high-quality character of our suburban street. 

The adopted brief for the site reinforces this design requirement and sets out specifically;

Low density family houses are considered the most compatible form of development given the character of the surrounding area.  Flatted development is unlikely to be considered favourably given the nature of Bow Lane.

3. Impact on Neighbouring Amenity 

  • The architect has not carried out daylight/sunlight testing and I am concerned that the scale of these buildings, in a suburban street, would result in a loss of daylight and sunlight as well as being visually intrusive and unduly dominant to surrounding residential properties. It is difficult to understand how detailed plans have been drawn up without any BRE daylight/sunlight and overshadowing reports being undertaken? 

4. Parking and Traffic

  • 130 flats with just 38 car park spaces is a huge concern. This will negatively impact on surrounding roads, which are already full. I understand that the RCN research shows that Nurses have low car ownership, however these flats are not guaranteed for Nurses, so these statistics are irrelevant.
  • The scale of this proposal will increase traffic to a residential area and impact on highway safety, which is already dangerous with Bow Lane being used as a cut through for local traffic. 

5. False Branding and Affordability Issues 

  • I am concerned these are being branded as ‘Homes for NHS’, when these are not guaranteed for Nurses and the affordability levels were unclear,  which is worrying given that this seems to be the whole premise of the proposal. Nurses will be given first refusal and I highly doubt there will be much uptake for these ‘affordable’ rented units. According to the planner’s vague quote of ‘£200 and something per week’ to rent a room in a 3-bed flat- this equates to at least 52% of a newly qualified nurse salary. 
  • The site brief also states that any enabling development must be fully justified in terms of necessity in enabling the delivery of health, community or public open space/sports facilities only. Enabling development must pass strict tests of viability in terms of supporting the ‘public benefit’ accruing from the site, this has not been demonstrated.

Yours sincerely,

Christina

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.