A complete Friday Joke - Barnet Council's enforcement of planning conditions at Barretts NIMR site

 I generally try and avoid local issues on a Friday. It is the start of the weekend. However, this week I have to break this rule. I received the most nonsensical response to an email that I've ever received from anyone at Barnet Council. Ever since Barratts started redeveloping the National Institute for Medical Research site on the Ridgeway, there has been a ongoing issue with mud and dirt on the road. The planning permission compells Barnet Council to ensure Barratts are washing the wheels of vehicles before they leave the site, so that mud and mess is not left on the pavement and carriageway. There are three reasons why this is important. The first is that dangerous pathogens, asbestos and radioactive materials were identified on the site, and this was deemed necessary to prevent the risk, however small, of these being dispersed beyond the site. The second is that the mud and spoil washes into the gulleys etc, blocking them and increasing the risk of flooding as drains block. The third is that the mud is slippery when wet. There is a primary school within 50 yards of the site. The mud increase the risks of car accidents, people slipping over and also it creates mess on cars.

I have been writing to Barnet Council for three years, providing evidence that the wheel washing is insufficient. Earlier this week, I send two photographs and a video of evidence showing this.

Here is the first picture. As you can see, there are large lumps of clay on the truck wheels. The truck should have had it's wheels jet washed (and also mud spilling from the uncovered top. The trucks are meant to cover the mud, to stop contamination.  Do you think this has been done effectively? 

The second image shows another truck which clearly has wheels covered in dust and soil. It is blurry, but it is quite clear that the wheels have not been washed. Would you agree?

Finally, we have a video. This was taken on the Bank Holiday weekend Monday morning. This shows that the carriageway was covered in mud for the whole of the weekend. There was clearly no washing done.

You would think that this is fairly compelling evidence and that the Council would be up for a site visit and taking enforcement action, wouldn't you? Well here is the reply I got from Barnet Council. 

From: "F*****, R*****" 
To: "ROGER TICHBORNE" <roger.tichborne@btinternet.com>
Cc: "H*****, R****" ;  "Hooton, John" <John.Hooton@Barnet.gov.uk>; "Duschinsky, Cllr Val" <Cllr.V.Duschinsky@Barnet.gov.uk>; "Zinkin, Cllr Peter" <Cllr.P.Zinkin@Barnet.gov.uk>; "Rozenberg, Cllr Gabriel" <Cllr.G.Rozenberg@Barnet.gov.uk>
Sent: Thursday, 2 Sep, 21 At 11:22
Subject: RE: Enforcement Acknowledgement Letter ENF/0925/21

Dear Mr Tichborne,

Thank you for your response.

The wheels shown in your photos appear to be sufficiently clean.

The planning enforcement team are satisfied that, at this time, the developer is complying with their planning obligations with regard to measures to prevent debris being transferred onto the public highway.

A jet wash for wheel washing has been provided at the site and it being utilised as per the approved Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP).

The road sweeper is also in operation to address any overflow, as per the approved CEMP.

In light of the above, there are no grounds for further planning enforcement action in relation to this matter at this time.

Kind regards,

R***** F*****

Senior Compliance Officer

Planning Enforcement Team

London Borough of Barnet, 2 Bristol Avenue, Colindale, NW9 4EW

Tel: 020 8359 **** | Web: barnet.gov.uk

Please note that the comments are provisional and represent an informal view by an officer; the views contained within this email do not constitute an official determination, are not legally binding and do not bind the council to a particular course of action.

RE (Regional Enterprise) Limited is a joint venture between Capita plc and London Borough of Barnet. Registered in England 08615172. Registered Office: 65 Gresham Street, London, EC2V 7NQ.

I have redacted the officers name, as I do not wish to hound the workers for the council, but can you imagine a more ridiculous response?

As you can see, I've copied one of Mill Hill's Conservative Councillors. I've had no response. I copied the CEO, no reply. 

It is clear that no one is properly taking the interests of local residents seriously at the Council. There can be no doubt about this now. I have no idea why Barratts have a free pass to break the rules. Can anyone offer an explanation?

Why you should oppose the latest application to change to the Barretts NIMR development

Barretts homes have submitted an application to increase the number of dwellings at the NIMR site on The Ridgeway. The details are here - https://publicaccess.barnet.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=Q9728TJI0DC00
Click on the comments tab to object (or support if you think I'm talking nonsense).

Whilst the change will sadly not make the development any less of an eyesore (see this tweet with pictures taken last week), it will make more, smaller flats, at the expense of large flats designed for family groups (something which does not conform with Barnets local plan, see extracts) and will add even more traffic to the already congested Ridgeway.

It is so disappointing to see what a blot on the Totteridge Valley the Barrett’s NIMR development is becoming. In design, every expense is spared, taking no account of the surround. This is the view from the Orange Tree side of the Valley.

It is so disappointing to see what a blot on the Totteridge Valley the Barrett’s NIMR development is becoming. In design, every expense is spared. This is the view from the Orange Tree side of the Valley. pic.twitter.com/MwcnGjToza

— Roger Tichborne/RogT #CTID 🏴‍☠️🇬🇧 (@Barneteye) June 4, 2020

Just to be clear, the Barnet Council local plan recognises the need for more family housing. Here are a few excerpts from the  Barnet Council local plan

'Barnet’s Local Plan | Core Strategy | September 2012285.1.10In order to protect the suburban distinctiveness of the borough we have to make more efficient use of previously developed land. We are faced with an imbalanced housing stock with one household in three considered to under-occupy, while the demands for increased housing choice, affordable housing, and family homes to meet aspirations of home ownership are increasing'

'Our Housing Strategy emphasises that to improve choice we need to increase housing supply, including family sized homes.'

'Over 50% of residential conversions generate one bedroom units. Family homes such as those containing three bedrooms or more are likely to be generated via new-build developments.'

'Our dwelling size priorities are for family accommodation across all tenures :•For social rented housing – homes with 3 bedrooms are the highest priority•For intermediate affordable housing – homes with 4 bedrooms are the highest priority•For market housing – homes with 4 bedrooms are the highest priority, homes with 3 bedrooms are a medium priority'

'Barnet’s Core Strategy has to address the demands for family accommodation at lower densities while meeting the demands for higher densities driven by the planned growth as part of our development pipeline and housing targets in the London Plan.'

'The North London SHMA bed size requirement model, based on housing affordability according to London Plan definitions, in general supports our prioritisation of family accommodation. It shows that in the market sector there is the need for family homes of at least 2 bedrooms, in particular 4+ bedrooms. This supports our stated levels of priority. In the intermediate and social sector there is also a marked need for 4+ bedrooms as well as 2 and 3 bedrooms.'  

The new Barratts planning application states

Since planning permission was granted a number of changes have taken place,which are material to the deliverability of the approved plans for the final phase. Principally this comprises of a shift in market demand away from larger (oversized) units towards more modest sized homes, more closely aligned with Mayoral standards. In order to avoid the risk of a slowdown in the rate of housing delivery on the site (or at worst the scheme stalling), the applicant wishes to revise the scheme to make it fit for market

 This translates to "we want to build more, smaller flats on the space, rather than family spaces". I wasn't aware of the huge demographic change that meant all of a sudden, the families that needed space in 2018, when the permission was granted have magically disappeared. Where have they gone?

Whilst the planning application makes repeated references to the Mayoral plan, this is a London wide document. The Barnet plan reflects the needs in our local community. It is interesting that Barratts are much keener to refer to the Mayors plan. It says much about their commitment to our local community. Those of us who live locally and have raised families locally, want a community locally and this means provision for families.

Whilst housing is a priority, the council has a policy. We believe that there is still a responsibility to make buildings look attractive and fit in. The Totteridge Valley is one area we can all enjoy for free. During the lockdown, many young families have discovered Darlands Lake and the surrounding fields. Allowing such blocks to blot the landscape is, in my opinion, an act of cultural vandalism and a reason why I will not be voting for Sadiq Khan.
One of the small areas of solace from the development was that there were spaces for families, who would have easy access to the local schools and the local green space. Removing this will add to the traffic on the Ridgeway. Had the new plan been part of the existing submission it would have been rejected. It is simply not on for developers to submit one set of plans to get a scheme passed and then put a series of supposedly 'minor amendments' so that they end up getting what they were hoping for (bigger profits).

For me, the Barratts scheme has failed the local community in three ways. The first is that it is incredibly ugly and has not been a good addition to the Ridgeway. The second is that Barratts have taken no account of the principle of being good neighbours and have shown no consideration for the people who live and work nearby. The third is that they are trying to transform the scheme into one which does not meet the needs of the local community. Family dwellings near schools are clearly desireable.

I note, with a degree of despair that none of the local groups have bothered to comment on this plan. Do the Residents Association and the Preservation Society really have no opinion? As a community, we have a responsibility to keep fighting for what is best for our community. I will happily publish a guest blog from any local group who supports the scheme and can detail why ( so long as they have not been in receipt of funds from the developers). If there is some positive aspect of this monstrosity that I've missed, I'll be more than happy to admit I'm wrong. Sadly it seems to me that the only people who support it are people who have been on the receiving end of funds to help their pet schemes.

I'll finish with a little video filmed by my band, The False Dots, which will remind you of the sad demolition of a famous Mill Hill Landmark.