A plan to build flats up to nine storeys high close to an area of low-rise, terraced housing has been turned down.
Councillors refused Taylor Wimpey’s plan to build 307 homes at the site of the Homebase store at 679 High Road, North Finchley, at a meeting of the strategic planning committee on Wednesday.
Officers at Barnet Council had recommended the scheme for approval, claiming it was in line with local policies and a development plan drawn up for the town centre.
But the committee disagreed after residents and councillors raised concerns it was an urban development planned for a suburban location and would harm the character of the area.
The developer planned to knock down the Homebase store and build six blocks ranging from four to nine storeys at the site, with 35 per cent of the homes classed as affordable on a habitable room basis.
Speaking at the planning committee, Mary Hogben, of the Finchley Society, claimed the plans went against the council’s own policies and its North Finchley Town Centre Framework Supplementary Planning Document (SPD).
Ms Hogben said: “The SPD requires that proposals outside of the town centre, which this is, accommodate a mixed choice of apartments that complement the terraced housing stock around. It also consigns tall buildings to the town centre itself.
“That this scheme is totally out of context and will adversely impact the neighbours, robbing them of light, sky and privacy, is self-evident.”
Another opponent, Jeffrey Borinsky, described the density of the scheme – 785 habitable rooms per hectare – as “ludicrously excessive” and “more than three times the sustainable residential quality”.
Cllr Ross Houston (Labour, West Finchley) claimed the developers had “treated the site as an inner London town centre site, completely ignoring the suburban context”. He said the site was left out of the town centre boundary in the SPD because it is “in the middle of a low-rise, residential area”.
Speaking on behalf of the developer, planning agent Jon Murch claimed the scheme had been “designed to follow the clear guidance set out within the council’s framework, to optimise the development potential of sites on the edge of the town centre”.
Mr Murch said: “The delivery of this scheme and the first phase of development will be critically important in respect of providing new residents, who will deliver the vision set out within the council’s framework and be the catalyst for regeneration of the town centre.
Under questioning from Cllr Julian Teare (Conservative, High Barnet), Mr Murch said the density matrix was being phased out of the London Plan in favour of “optimisation of sites”.
“They are design-led policies, and that’s what this scheme has been designed to work with,” he added.
In response to a point made by Cllr Claire Farrier (Labour, West Finchley), planning officer Josh McClean admitted the site did not fall within the designated town centre as defined by the local plan but said it was part of what the SPD “hoped to achieve”.
But councillors continued to criticise the scheme. Committee chairman Cllr Shimon Ryde (Conservative, Childs Hill) said: “This site has been judged as an urban site, which has allowed the density and height to be far greater than had it been looked at as a suburban site.
“It is my view that this is too tall, too dense and should fail on that, because the housing around it is different in character – it is low rise, residential, and a scheme like this just does not feel appropriate for this site.”
After the debate, committee members unanimously refused the scheme on the grounds that it would be an overdevelopment due to its excessive density, height and scale, failing to respect the local context and pattern of development in the surrounding area.
Due to the size of the development, the plans will be referred to Mayor of London Sadiq Khan, who can confirm or overturn the committee’s decision.
- We’ve launched a new Facebook group for politics fans in the borough. Please join the conversation over at North London politics – Barnet, Enfield and Haringey.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel