Local Plan Briefing Note

Barnet Councils new Local Plan sets the Council’s vision for growth and development in Barnet over a 15-year period (2021-2036). It is out for consultation and representations until 9th August 2021.

Update 10 August 2021: see BCAG response to local plan.

Is it important?

Yes! The Development Plan is the basis upon which planning applications in the Borough will be determined. In the next 15 years that means some 60,000 decisions taken by the Council involving the development of new homes, the amount of affordable housing, loss of open space, new businesses, how Barnet will look, its ‘character’, how it tackles Climate Change, biodiversity, wildlife, transport, energy etc will all be affected by it.

This version of the Local Plan is a draft document specifically produced to enable representations to be made on the draft plan that will then be considered by an independent Inspector at the examination stage. Written representations and appearing at the public examination are supposed to carry the same weight.

The draft plan is a technical document but do not let that put you off. If it does not say what you think it should – or says something you think it shouldn’t then make a representation. If you want to change Barnet’s policy at this stage keep in mind that you should have good grounds and sound evidence to back up what you say – just having an opinion won’t wash!

What key areas does it cover?

Pretty much anything and everything to do with the built and natural environment in Barnet. Chapter headings include:

  • Barnet’s Vision and Objectives
  • Growth and Spatial Strategy
  • Housing
  • Character, Design and heritage
  • Town centres
  • Community Uses and promotion of health and well being
  • Economy
  • Environment and Climate Change
  • Transport and Communications

How is the plan structured?

The Plan contains:

  • 309 Pages
  • 12 Chapters
  • 3 Appendicies
  • 52 Policies and supporting text
  • 67 Site Specific proposals

What is the key driver behind the plan?

By 2036 Barnet is looking at a projected population increase of over 50,000 up to a total of 452,000. This will need a minimum of 35,460 new homes (2,364 new homes per annum). Barnet’s Plan seeks to enable this growth and deal with the implications of it.

Are Barnet’s parks, open spaces and biodiversity protected?

The policy approach should be strengthened. The important part of the plan – the one in daily use by planners in determining applications and considered by developers is the Policy. In this plan the supporting text often reads stronger than the policy.

[The original document contains copies of eight policies in the appendix which appear to have a significant bearing on open spaces, biodiversity and parks in the borough. These are omitted from the web version]

Areas to consider for representations.

  • Oppose “low value, low quality” provisions in Policy ECC04. We should be protecting and enhancing all open space in the borough not allowing development on it. The ‘evidence’ to justify this policy is out of date, extremely subjective in its judgements and should not be used. Recommend removal of this element of the policy.
  • A Regional Park for Barnet based on the Green Belt. The idea has been around for many years but the there is nothing specific on how and when it will be delivered. The messages given in the plan on this are garbled. Recommend much clearer statement on how this is to be progressed.
  • Hedges get limited mention and Trees are subsumed within generalised policies. Recommend strengthened, separate policy on dealing with Trees and hedgerows.
  • B-lines – No mention of these pollinator highways, promoted by Buglife as part of the Governments pollinator strategy. The north-south corridor through London cuts across parts of the borough including parts of Finchley and New Southgate where there is a growth area and a number of site specific proposals. Recommend add B-lines to Key diagram, proposals map and covered in appropriate policies and site specific proposals.
  • Temporary use of development sites for green space. There is a policy on ‘meanwhile uses’ for temporary housing but not on potential for open space. Recommend new policy supporting temporary use of development sites for open space and community growing projects.
  • Front garden use for car parking. No policy on prevention of turning front gardens into car parking on those roads where planning permission is required. Recommend addition of policy opposing use of front gardens for car parking.
  • Support reasonably strong policies protecting Green Belt and Metropolitan Open land. The likelihood is that these policies will be attacked by developers.
  • Consider whether you should be promoting sites/ideas near to you. Two that I shall be promoting are: Creation of a new park in East Finchley in an area of open space deficiency and designating Barnet owned land adjacent to a local park as an extension to the park.

There are probably a lot more ideas that could and should be raised.

Use the forms provided.

Barnet are using a form for representations based on nationally prescribed ones. Do use them. It makes life easier all round.

Roger Chapman

Chair, Barnet Green Spaces Network

6th July 2021

The appendix of the original document contains the text of the following policies relevant to Open Space. These are omitted from the web version.

  • POLICY BSS01 Spatial Strategy for Barnet
  • POLICY GSS13 Strategic Parks and Recreation
  • Policy CDH07 Amenity Space and Landscaping
  • Policy CHW 02 – Promoting health and wellbeing
  • Policy ECC02A Water Management Policy
  • Policy ECC04 –Barnet’s Parks and Open Spaces
  • Policy ECC05 – Green Belt and Metropolitan Open Land
  • Policy ECC06 – Biodiversity

Barnet’s air quality. Why we should be concerned.

[Update 17 Sep 2021: we have been contacted by Mums For Lungs, and you may like to work with them if you want to campaign about air quality in London.]

From 2016 to 2019 Central London experienced significant improvements in air quality [1]. One consequence was a 97 per cent reduction in the number of inner London schools exceeding legal pollution limits – from 455 in 2016, to just 14 in 2019 – as well as a 94 per cent reduction in the number of these areas exceeding legal limits for nitrogen dioxide (NO2). It is also predicted to increase the average life expectancy of a child born in inner London in 2013 by six months [1].

Despite this, the levels of air pollution in London are still far too high and the improvements in air quality in inner London have not happened in many outer boroughs.. An Imperial College study concluded that toxic air had contributed to the deaths of more than 4,000 Londoners in 2019 [1], the boroughs with the largest number of air pollution related deaths in 2019 being Bromley, Barnet, Croydon and Havering [1].

That pollution-related deaths are higher in outer boroughs is partly a reflection of the higher proportion of elderly residents in these boroughs. Older people are generally more vulnerable to the impacts of air pollution. We know that air pollution increases the severity of other health problems, like heart attacks, strokes, diabetes and high blood pressure. Other factors are also involved. Londoners exposed to the worst air pollution are more likely to live in deprived areas and to be from Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic communities. There is also emerging evidence that links air pollution to an increased vulnerability to the most severe impacts of COVID-19 [2].

The expanded ULEZ may exacerbate the problems Barnet faces when dealing with air pollution.

The success of the existing central London Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) gives confidence that the expansion of the ULEZ on 26 October 2021 [2] and tighter standards for heavy vehicles across the entire city will deliver wider benefits. It is predicted that this will save the NHS around £5 billion and prevent more than one million hospital admissions over the next 30 years [1]. Barnet Council has produced detailed information as to the parts of the borough most affected by air pollution, as part of its plan detailing actions it aims to deliver between 2017 and 2022 in order to improve local air quality in the borough [3].

The boundary of the new, expanded ULEZ will be at (but not including) the A406 North Circular [2]. Unfortunately as much of Barnet lies outside of this new ULEZ, this ULEZ expansion is unlikely to lead to an overall improvement of air quality in the borough. Instead it may lead to many residential streets near the A406 in Barnet becoming more congested and polluted, as drivers try to avoid the charge. There are also the highly polluted trunk roads north of the A406 such as A1, M1, A41, A5 and A1000 that are not in the new ULEZ and will not therefore see reductions in vehicle pollution.

BCAG would like to see a prioritisation of Barnet Council’s stated objective [3] of exploring the option of increasing the ULEZ to cover the whole of Barnet. This could potentially have the most significant impact on improving air quality in the borough. GLA evidence for ULEZ expansion predicts a 31% reduction in NOx emissions in Barnet by 2025 if all of Barnet were to be in a ULEZ, but only an 8% decrease with just the area south of the A406 is in the new, expanded ULEZ [3].

Furthermore, while expanding ULEZ will help reduce NO2 levels in London (the latter mainly due to diesel exhaust), we will still be faced with the problem of breathing in unacceptable levels of PM2.5 particulates (ninety-nine per cent of London does not meet WHO recommended limits for PM2.5 – the particles most dangerous for health). Expanding our low traffic neighbourhoods might not always partially solve this PM2.5 problem, since they can lead to traffic being diverted from more affluent “leafy” roads to busier, potentially less affluent areas. The latest Imperial College study of pollution levels in the Marylebone Road during lockdown has found that particulate pollution from tyres and brakes has not declined with the reduced volume of traffic, since this traffic is now moving faster.

The prospect for real-time monitoring of the pollution in Barnet.

BCAG would like to see the participation of Barnet in the London Air Quality Network [4] and – in the very near future – Barnet included in the Breathe London real time monitoring of pollution [5].

Barnet Council is currently monitoring pollution at two sites and has produced a detailed pollution map of the borough [3]. However this map is based on single measurements at several individual sites, whereas the pollution levels at all of these sites will vary considerably over time with changes in traffic levels, weather conditions etc. What is needed is up-to-date information provided by continuous monitoring of pollution throughout the day (“real-time” monitoring) – readily accessible to everyone through the CityAir app. Breathe London is currently placing the sensors for such pollution monitoring at 300 sites across London [5]. In addition it will be providing each London borough at least one sensor, the borough then being able to chose the location of this sensor in conjunction with local communities [5]. Furthermore, in addition to these Breathe London sponsored sensors, boroughs and other organisations will be able to ‘buy in’ extra sensors to the network at a greatly reduced cost [5]. With the launch of this programme, there is no reason that a network of sensors cannot now supply online localized air pollution data in real-time for those sites in Barnet where residents are most exposed to pollution. Residents will then be able to use the CityAir app to minimise pollutant harm to themselves and their children, Policymakers can also identify problem areas and take steps to protect those who are most at risk, including school children and the residents of lower-income neighbourhoods. The technology is now available. BCAG believes it should be introduced with high priority.

BCAG would also like to see the right air quality standards – legally binding WHO recommended limits on pollutants – to be achieved by 2030, adopted in the Government’s new, but at present underwhelming, Environment Bill. This will be a once-in-a-generation opportunity to rebuild our cities and economies to be greener, fairer, and more sustainable. However under the Government’s current plans, air pollution in the UK is expected to remain at dangerous levels for at least another 10 years [6]. The estimated cost to health and social care services is upwards of a staggering £2 billion [7], as a result of its impact on heart disease, stroke, lung cancer and childhood asthma.

Improving air quality is key for our children’s future.

Children are one of the worst affected groups when it comes to air pollution. According to Unicef UK, children are growing up breathing hazardous levels of toxic air across 86% the UK. It stunts their lung development and increases risk of asthma and pneumonia. Furthermore children breathing toxic air are four times more likely to have reduced lung function in adulthood. All policymakers should take necessary action to protect children especially from road transport emissions. A recent study found that children are most exposed travelling to school, not in the classroom [8].

The latest Breathe London dataset of nitrogen oxides (NOx) pollution at 1,795 primary schools across the city [9] attributes 45% of the pollution in Barnet to road traffic. The 10 schools in Barnet most affected by poor air quality are:

  1. Wentworth Tutorial College
  2. Wessex Gardens Primary
  3. Golders Hill
  4. Mapledown
  5. Colindale Primary
  6. St Josephs Catholic Primary
  7. Beis Medrash Elyon
  8. All Saints CofE Primary NW2
  9. Barnet Hill Academy
  10. Nancy Reuben Primary







[6] Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: Clean Air Strategy

[7] Public Health England: Estimation of costs to the NHS and social care due to the health impacts of air pollution,





Reducing carbon emissions from Barnet’s homes

by Syed Ahmed

A great blog by housing energy efficiency specialists Parity Projects on the workforce required to see homes on a zero carbon pathway – and the retrofit tasks and skills required to upgrade homes. As a reminder of the challenge just in Barnet – never mind the UK – there are 160,000 homes in the borough. The latest data shows that through the Mayor’s energy efficiency scheme have supported the retrofit of exactly 200 homes in the borough since 2016 (see data here). The Energy Company Obligation (ECO) programme is the Government’s main household energy efficiency programme. The latest data published by the Department of Business Energy and Industry (BEIS) shows that just over 5,000 homes received an energy efficiency improvement since this new phase of the scheme began operation in 2015. (See BEIS statistics for March 2020 here – tab 4.4 of the spreadsheet there).

So – over the past five years or so, being generous, some 5,500 homes in Barnet have had some form of energy efficiency improvements installed through a targeted programme. In addition – approximately 1.6m boilers are replaced every year across the UK. Barnet’s likely share of this would be about 10,000 or so per year – 50,000 over the past five years – which would all have improved the energy efficiency of homes.

Whilst this level of activity is to be welcomed, none of the work currently being undertaken in existing homes achieves anything near the zero carbon standard needed to fully address the climate emergency. Much deeper retrofits are required, and the scale of action needs to be significantly increased if we are to reduce emissions from the domestic sector across Barnet and all other parts of the UK.

Prioritising energy efficiency in Barnet’s homes will boost opportunities for local building services companies, insulation firms, plumbers and other associated trades. These are exactly the SMEs currently being hammered during the lockdown. Boosting energy efficiency will be good for Barnet’s homes, for tackling fuel poverty, for resident’s health and supporting local businesses and employment.


Post -Covid 19: What Will Be The New Normal?

by Tony Sarchet

A crisis as serious as the current pandemic has put normal life on hold. At the same time, it raises certain concerns about exactly what kind of normal life we should be hoping to return to once the crisis has passed. A lower carbon one would be nice.

Here are a few questions that have occurred to me, prompted by the changes we have all been living through:

Now that we’ve all been forced to get used to conducting meetings from home using platforms such as Zoom, will companies in future enthusiastically revert to spending large sums of money sending their employees across the country, continent or world to check into expensive hotels in order to transact business? Or will some proportion of them decide to forego the jet lag, the travel time and the expenditure? What will this mean for projected future airline capacity? Will the money these airlines are already pleading the government to bail them out with turn out to be money well-spent?

And now that companies have been forced to make arrangements for many of their employees to work from home, how many of them may occasionally prefer not to have to undergo the crowded and stressful daily commute? Will this have an impact on future passenger numbers?

And now that many smaller companies which previously supplied produce exclusively to restaurants and cafes have started offering home deliveries of fresh fruit and vegetables of impressively good quality, how much of a chunk of the big supermarkets’ consumer business might they retain? And wouldn’t this be good for both growers and wholesalers, and maybe even help to reduce food miles?

The new normal seems to be a place where there is such a thing as society, where people in medicine and the caring professions are regarded as heroes. I wonder what else will be discovered – or rediscovered?