Concessions at Whalebones – but not nearly enough
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/7c4c1/7c4c1e3ba2afee18147eebde8827bbfaba209cbc" alt=""
A new planning application is in for the Whalebones site. The plans have been scaled back from 152 to 114 homes, but in most other respects are similar to the one we objected to in 2019. To be clear: the Barnet Society doesn’t object to some housing to fund reprovision for the artists, bee-keepers and the current tenant farmer, and for maintenance of the estate. But the Trustees want way more than that. Our Committee is minded to object again, and encourages you to submit your own objections before the deadline of 14 November.
Read on to find out our grounds for objection, and how to submit your own.
The saga so far…
The Whalebones site is a surprising and wonderful survival – almost 12 acres of greenery and biodiversity close to the heart of Chipping Barnet. Although not designated as Green Belt, it includes the last remaining fields near the town centre and is integral to the Wood Street Conservation Area (WSCA). Anywhere else in the UK, surely, building over 6 acres of green space in a Conservation Area would be inconceivable.
The WSCA encapsulates 800 years of Barnet history. At one end is St John the Baptist’s church and our original marketplace, chartered in 1199; at the other end, open fields. Their juxtaposition is richly symbolic. Barnet’s growth to national status derived chiefly from livestock: herds were driven across the country to their final pastures on the fringe of the town, then sold at Barnet market. Building over the last remaining fields would brutally contradict several statements in the CA Appraisal Statement and amount to lobotomy of Barnet’s collective memory.
Hill, the developer working with the Trustees of the Whalebones Estate, first submitted a proposal in 2019. It was for 152 homes, 40% of which were to be ‘affordable’. A new building was to be provided for Barnet Guild of Artists and Barnet Beekeepers Association. The tenant farmer, Peter Mason and his wife Jill, would have rent-free accommodation and agricultural space for life. There were to be two new public open spaces including a health and wellbeing garden. A route between Wood Street and Barnet Hospital via a new woodland walk was offered.
Before responding we asked for our members’ views. A decisive majority of respondents – nearly 90% – opposed the scheme, and only three supported it. We therefore objected to the application. The plans were refused permission in 2020, and Hill’s appeal against the Council decision was dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate in 2021.
The latest plans include 114 new homes, of which 40% would again be ‘affordable’. ranging from 2 to 5 storeys in height. The building line along Wood Street would be set back. The blocks next to Elmbank would be reduced, as would be the single-storey studio for the artists and beekeepers. Gone is the health and wellbeing garden. The rest is much as proposed in 2019, but the eastern part of the site would remain in the ownership of the Trustees.
Information can also be found on Hill’s website: https://whalebones-consultation.co.uk/
The Society’s response
Our Committee has drafted the Society’s objection. These are its key points:
- 114 homes far exceed what is necessary to fund reprovision for the artists, bee-keepers and tenant farmer and maintenance of the estate.
- The Whalebones fields are integral to the history and character of the Wood Street Conservation Area. Their loss would seriously harm the CA.
- That would set a very bad precedent for Barnet’s other conservation areas.
- A development of this scale contradicts Council, London Mayoral and national planning policies that promote the value of open space, the environment and farming.
- It would be inconsistent with Barnet’s declaration of a climate and biodiversity emergency.
- The remaining open space would have the character of an urban park, not the rural character it has now – part parkland, part agricultural smallholding.
- A Woodland Walk would merely replace the permissive path Gwyneth Cowing, the previous owner, allowed across the site.
- Some buildings would be 5 storeys high, the same as the tallest hospital buildings.
- Setting back the building line from Wood Street would not provide a visual break between the new houses and Elmbank. The separate identities of Chipping Barnet and Arkley would disappear.
- The application is unclear about the long-term ownership and management of the public spaces or smallholding (after departure of the tenant farmer and his wife). If 114 homes are approved, the eastern part of the site will be ripe for further development.
Conclusion
If approved, these plans will represent a huge lost opportunity for Chipping Barnet. We don’t accept the applicant’s assertion that some form of agricultural or other green land-based activities would not be appropriate and economically viable. The developer hasn’t explored activities of a kind likely to have interested Gwyneth Cowing. These include a city farm for young and old people, including those with special needs, as just one possibility. Other acceptable uses include education, training and/or therapy in horticulture, animal husbandry and environmental studies, perhaps in partnership with a local school or college.
When this project began in 2015, the Council was seeking a replacement site for one of its special schools. Last year it approved a new school for 90 pupils with Autistic Spectrum Disorder in a converted office block in Moxon Street, with no outdoor play space except on its roof. It is a dismal comment on the priorities of the Trustees and the Council that locating it on part of Whalebones – the greenery of which would have been of profound benefit to the wellbeing and education to the pupils – was never considered.
In our view, any of the alternatives mentioned above would enhance the CA. They would also be in keeping with the spirit of Ms Cowing’s will. On the planning portal, a ‘Master Pipistrelle’ has posted a poignant Ode to Gwyneth. It includes these verses:
Eighteen ninety-nine was the year of Gwyn’s birth
At Whalebones, in Barnet on this green Earth
Was the Cowing’s estate, her manor-house home
A place where both artists and bees could roam…
Plan after plan, they’re ignoring Gwyn’s will
But the People are here, trying to instil
the ambition of Gwyn, for her home to enthral
To remain in the community forever and for all.
Too right! We’re currently consulting our members on our response.
How to object
Submit your own objections directly via the planning portal.
Or you can writing, with the application reference no. (23/4117/FUL) clearly at the top, to the Planning Officer:
Josh McLean MRTPI
Planning Manager
Planning and Building Control
Barnet Council
2 Bristol Avenue, Colindale, NW9 4EW
Tags: #Barnet Council #Chipping Barnet #Climate Change #Development #Environment #Footpaths #History #Nature #Open-spaces #Planning #Sustainability #Trees #Whalebones
3 thoughts on “Concessions at Whalebones – but not nearly enough”
Comments are closed.
A well reasoned comment by the mononymous Bob, until insisting none of the article’s arguments against this application make sense and are instead just horrid nimbyism. However it is useful to see this point of view, shared by others, derisive sentiments included, and in print.
Keeping strictly to policy rather than Politics (which is not the Barnet Society or this website’s domain) I understand first hand that both national Labour Party policy envisages protecting the few surviving urban green spaces while the Labour Mayor of London is a passionate supporter of urban farms. Sadiq Khan specifically rejected calls to intervene to overturn Barnet’s vote to refuse the previous application. If he had intervened it would have been all over at that stage. Reducing the revised proposal to under 150 homes removed the Mayor’s authority to call in the application. Barnet Council’s Labour majority group also has protecting urban green space as a stated priority. All three could support this revised proposal as suggested, but doing so would be seen as being at odds with these policies.
It is understood housing is desperately needed and that there is a fierce debate on what sort of land it should be built on. That is a worthwhile discussion and it is reasonable that should have included Whalebones. However if any green urban space is worth any protection it should have been a very short debate ending with ruling out anything other than a small enabling development. Usually of between one and five small houses these are quite normal with small holdings to inject capital to continue agricultural use.
Nowhere else would this scheme be a starter with and politicians of any party (let alone some of both Labour and Conservative). The nearer you get to the proposal and its nurturing over many decades the more that wider perspective is lost. Things started moving towards this point with Gwyneth Cowing being persuaded to move out of Whalebones house and sign the latest will it is now agreed gives no legal force to her wishes. It is hard to see a single decision taken in the management of the estate since that hasn’t been made to make development more likely. Miss Cowing’s wishes have only been observed when they do not conflict with this objective.
The fields of Whalebones are nobody’s backyard (as in NIMBY) but rather the very definition of an urban green field site. Taking the estate as a whole including the grounds of Whalebones House it is a single island of wildlife and remarkable bio–diversity, perhaps in spite of reports submitted with the application curiously contradicting what can be seen and heard by anyone passing in the street. This character defines the Conservation Area and anywhere else would be seen as the highest priority for protection. The exclusion of public access through fewer community groups being invited to use it and the closing of the permissive footpath are simply two aspects of the decades of preparation to turn a heritage and environmental treasure into a huge cash windfall.
Significant pastoral use ended not 800 years ago but as recently as 2001 when the last of Gwyneth Cowing’s herd of prize cattle was slaughtered during the foot and mouth epidemic. That emergency also saw the permissive footpath she had so valued permanently closed by the Trust.
The issue will always be owners wishing to develop such land. It is surely as plain as a large pikestaff millimetres from the eyeball and closing rapidly that saying such protection is dependent on the same owner’s allowing public access leaves no protection whatsoever. Yet this is the argument routinely used to set aside policies that should protect Whalebones along with suggestions this is offset by the unsubstantiated offer of a public open space in perpetuity. Strangely this area to the east of Whalebones House is claimed to be viable despite having no visible arrangements for its ownership, management or financial support when an urban farm, or indeed by inference any urban farm, is claimed despite providing an income not to be “practicable”. Surely another development in the pipeline?
This application exists in a bubble of alternative reality puffed up to contain even the Local Plan with every attempt to inflate it to include the relevant planning committees. The boundaries of this bubble stretch well past consideration that any green space anywhere deserves any protection. It seems this has only happened and could only have happened in Barnet.
We live in a city with a huge housing crisis. Young people can’t buy, and they are now being priced out of renting – forcing people to leave jobs, friends and areas they love.
This is a perfectly reasonable much needed housing development, 15 mins walk from a tube station, on a field sandwiched between an A road and a busy hospital.
To object because it was a field with livestock on it 800 years ago is frankly ridiculous.
Of course there are more houses than are necessary to fund bee keepers etc, we have a housing crisis in this city and we need to build many many more houses to fix it.
None of your arguments make sense. This is a well considered, low density scheme that add a lot of value for the rest of the community.
This is simply horrid nimbyism, and is exactly why the Labour party are talking about bulldozing planning regulations.
When it becomes much harder to stop planning decisions and the needs of young people struggling to get housing are eventually prioritised, I’m sure you will be outraged, but please take a long hard look at yourselves and I hope you realise it was because of situations like this – where Nimbys hold up and try to stop perfectly reasonable housing developments from taking place.
I want to be wrong, however, have a strange feeling this time it will get approved.