THE place to find ANY action group in the United Kingdom
	Home  | about us  | contact us  | message forum

Home  | Groups List  | History  | Current Update 2003  | air your views here

The most damaging (but not the only) case of overdevelopment in this Octagon-proposed Hospital redevelopment scheme is where an Edmunds Walk two storey home (and its near neighbours) is to have a five-storey classroom block positioned only 18 meters from its rear walls. Please notice how the house is overshadowed (click here for plan 4) by the five-storey high Institute classroom building (Plan 2 click here) and how the house and its proximity to the Institute building was deliberately left off all the plans by the architects deliberately in order to mislead the Public….(click here for plan 3). The five storey high Institute building is 47,000 sq foot , despite the claims of the Institute themselves in their own Newspaper (In Sight 10/2002) produced long after the official application was submitted to Barnet, deliberately misleads the Public, that it is only 33,000 sq foot! And this with only 30 (yes, thirty) car parking places, whereas Barnet Head office with a similar number of on-site staff and visitors, has 250 on-site parking places.
The Institute has remained throughout conspicuously publicly silent.

This redevelopment scheme is being fought very hard. Late last year Barnet Council were sent a petition signed by 200 residents by one action group and a website was setup by the second action group, www.actiongroups.co.uk which includes details and pictures. Many residents also wrote to Barnet letters stressing all the objection points, and demanding that they refuse planning permission accordingly. Expert Planning Consultants were employed to help the fight; they prepared a detailed brief against the scheme which was sent to Barnet, and they have been advis-ing as matters arise. The HGS Residents Association were petitioned by the two groups (NOGO and STOP) oppos-ing the scheme and eventually the HGS RA came out decidedly against the overdevelopment, as did the HGS Trust, despite their general preference for the Institute to remain somehow ‘in the area’. Although the Petition was pre-sented to the Finchley and Golders Green Planning Sub-Committee at their January meeting, the development pro-posal was not tabled then - nor for the subsequent February and March 2003 meetings. Apparently Barnet planners have told Octagon that the proposed buildings are too large, and have asked them to revise their proposal.

We have recently heard that the Institute is now looking for an existing building elsewhere, and may abandon its desire to locate on the Hospital site. We strongly agree that the Institute should relocate elsewhere. If they do relo-cate elsewhere that will be a major victory for our campaigns. One can however be sure that developers will not give up; they will come back with another scheme, which will probably still involve gross over-development.

However, about a month ago, a notice was posted just outside the gates of the site, saying that the Developers had applied for permission to demolish the building. There was even a possibility that the matter might be decided by Planning Officers under delegated powers, without neighbours being informed, and without the matter going to Planning Sub-Committee. Written assurances that residents would be consulted were demanded by NOGO, and also that the matter would go before the Planning Sub-Committee, so that objectors would have a chance to speak. After much delay assurances were received. However, since the site is in a Conservation Area, demolition ought to be refused unless Developers can demonstrate that this is necessary as part of approved development; therefore this application should be considered only as part of the development as a whole, and not separately. We need as many locals as possible to write to Barnet saying this.

The existing late Victorian building on the site was used until recently by the National Hospital as their Rehabilita-tion Unit, but it is surplus to their requirements and is now empty. It has an interesting history, and rather than de-molish it, it was felt that it could be adapted for some community use, maybe as the ‘new’ library……what a library it would make! A detailed application to English Heritage for it to be “listed” was made. If successful, that would have preserved the site. Work had not started on this when it was found out that Barnet had submitted its own listing application, but had submitted no evidence to support it! We therefore took emergency action to develop our own case. This involved detailed research over many days in various archives and libraries. English Heritage and the Department of Culture, Media, and Sport considered our Consultants’ report for some weeks.
It was a disappointment that the final decision went against us. This was only one facet of the campaign, and it was well worth the effort!

Events have just taken a new turn which has resulted in this request to you to make a new written objection to Barnet preferably BEFORE MARCH 19th if possible BUT one can still object in writing right up to the final planning meeting and we ask you to do so even if this date has passed. Since the proposed access from Bishops Avenue is so problematic, an unknown developer has just submitted an application to construct a different access to the site, by using the little lane that runs from Deansway between no.59 Deansway and no.16 Bishops Avenue (and to widen the lane by buying part of the property of 59 Deansway). This lane is owned by the Hamp-stead Garden Suburb Trust (which controls developments of all our houses!) and the scheme could only succeed if the HGS Trust gave permission for their lane to be used, and for the owners of 59 Deansway to sell part of their property for this purpose. The HGS Trust confirmed that no application to use the road has been made and they also confirmed that they would not welcome the application (click here for letter 1).

This new plan would create the same problems as the Octagon development (noise, parking, traffic, overlooking), but in addition the new access would create traffic problems both behind the houses in Bishops Avenue, and in Deansway. There is no room to create a proper, safe access to and from Deansway, which is already congested; and traffic would swing wide across the road, close to the junction with Bishops Avenue.

In summary, we consider that the two new applications (copies enclosed) are both highly objectionable, and we urge all residents to oppose them vigorously. Experience has shown that determined and vocal action by individual residents really does have a major impact on the actions of the Council.
Council officials have told us that what really counts is individual letters to the Council, and to our local Ward Councillors. So PLEASE WRITE TO THEM, setting out your views. Your letter can be as long or as short as you like; you may wish to mention the points above, or others that concern you; but the very fact that people take the trouble to write (and to pay for a stamp!) indicates to the Council that the issue is impor-tant to them. Your vote counts!

Please write to:

1.Mr. David Prince, Finchley and Golders Green Area Team Leader, Planning, Highways, and Design, London Borough of Barnet,Barnet House, 1255 High Road, Whetstone LONDON, N20 0EJ

2. (a single letter addressed to all three) Councillors Vanessa Gearson, John Marshall,and Jasmine Naghar, c/o The Town Hall, London Borough of Barnet, The Burroughs,Hendon, LONDON, NW4 4BG.

Points to note:
The proposal to demolish the Hospital Building should NOT be considered on its own; it should be considered only with the application for the development that would replace it.

The proposal to create an access from Deansway is objectionable because:
It would create damaging traffic, noise, and pollution behind the houses in Bishops Avenue.
It would create increased traffic in Deansway, which is already heavily congested at certain times of day, particu-larly at the junction with Bishops Avenue.
It would be dangerous, because traffic would turn across Deansway and across the stream of traffic in it.
The lane is too narrow to accommodate more traffic.
It would increase unacceptably the levels of noise and pollution in Deansway.

REMEMBER: If the Developers cannot provide an acceptable access to the site, they will not be able to carry out the gross over-development of it that they propose. Therefore it is in the interest of ALL residents to oppose the access from Deansway.

Please lookup www.actiongroups.co.uk for more detailed plans.

THANK YOU
Both action groups would like to thank all those who have helped in the campaign so far. It has been impossible to write individually to thank you, as our resources are so overstretched. If you could offer a small amount of time, that would help greatly! If you would like a summary of the submission we sent to English Heritage to justify listing on historical grounds, please contact Alison.stein@virgin.net