At a meeting of the Strategic Planning Committee, Barnet Council resolved to approve plans for a new hotel in West Finchley, and for reserved matters relating to a residential development adjacent to Finchley Memorial Hospital. The committee agreed to conditions for the Shakespeare Road development relating to public realm improvements, fenestration, and vehicle servicing, and for the Finchley Memorial Hospital development relating to urban design and secure design.

Petition to Save Birch Trees

The committee considered a petition to save mature birch trees opposite East Finchley station. Roger Chapman, chair of the Friends of Cherry Tree Wood and the Barnet Greenspaces Network, addressed the committee, explaining that the petition sought tree preservation orders (TPOs) for five trees near Cherry Tree Wood, an idea that had been rejected in 2005 but has now been accepted. He thanked the committee, noting the importance of trees for air quality, the water cycle, carbon capture, and physical and mental health. Councillor Tim Roberts asked if the proposal had local support. Mr Chapman confirmed that a petition had gained 700 signatures, as the trees are a key feature for people leaving East Finchley tube station. The committee agreed to take no further action, as the tree preservation orders had been initiated, but requested that officers provide an update when the orders are confirmed.

1-4 Shakespeare Road

The committee considered an application for the demolition of existing buildings and the construction of a new 12-storey mixed-use development at 1-4 Shakespeare Road, West Finchley. The development would be hotel-led, comprising replacement office and nursery accommodation, with improvements to the public realm. After hearing from speakers for and against the proposal, the committee voted to grant planning permission, subject to conditions and a section 106 agreement¹, and referral to the Mayor of London.

Stephen Volley, case officer, presented the application, highlighting its location in Finchley Church End town centre, its car-free design (except for three accessible parking spaces), and its proximity to public transport. He noted that the site adjoins the Tesco Superstore site, which is allocated in the local plan for over 100 residential units. Mr Volley explained that the proposed 12-storey building would be taller than the existing Central House (10 storeys) and The Grove (nine storeys), but that the design includes setbacks and terraces to soften its impact. He also addressed concerns about daylight and sunlight impact on the neighbouring residential building at 7 Shakespeare Road, stating that an independent review concluded that while there would be some daylight loss, it would not be significant enough to warrant refusal. Mr Volley concluded that the benefits of the proposal, including boosting the vitality of the town centre, providing improved office and nursery accommodation, and designing out crime, outweighed the potential harm.

Councillor Ross Houston, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Homes & Regeneration, spoke in objection, urging the committee to listen to the residents' concerns. He welcomed the retention of the Avinash Chandra mural and the changes made to the original proposals, but raised concerns about the effect on light, particularly on 7 Shakespeare Road, and the need for public realm improvements.

Rajiv Agarwalla, a flat owner at 7 Shakespeare Road, spoke in objection on behalf of fellow residents, arguing that the new hotel would block an enormous amount of light and severely harm their well-being. He criticised the third-party daylight report commissioned by the council, claiming that it relied on incorrect information and assessed a proposal that was over three metres lower than the current scheme.

Hannah Brady, also a resident of 7 Shakespeare Road, spoke about the devastating impact the proposal would have on her home and enjoyment of life, stating that her entire living space would be cast into permanent shadow, with a projected 95% light reduction in her bedroom. She also raised concerns about loss of privacy, increased traffic and congestion, and potential noise and disturbance.

Benjamin Aron, the applicant, spoke in support of the proposal, arguing that it would be a catalyst for further investment, job opportunities, and regeneration in Finchley Town Centre. He highlighted the public benefits of the scheme, including a new hotel, flexible co-working space, an improved nursery, and the restoration of the Avinash Chandra mural.

Following questions from the committee, Councillor Nigel Young, Chair of the Strategic Planning Committee, proposed amendments to the section 106 agreement and planning conditions to address concerns about the public realm, fenestration, and vehicle servicing. The committee unanimously agreed to add these conditions. The committee then voted to grant planning permission, subject to the amended conditions and referral to the Mayor of London.

Land Adjacent to Finchley Memorial Hospital

The committee considered a reserved matters application relating to the land adjacent to Finchley Memorial Hospital, North Finchley. The application concerned scale, layout, appearance and landscaping, pursuant to outline planning permission 20/4343/OUT for the demolition of Bullimore House and the development of up to 130 residential units. The committee voted to grant reserved matters approval, subject to conditions and informatives.

Andrew Dillon, planning officer, presented the application, noting that the principle of development had already been established by the outline permission. He explained that the current application sought approval for reserved matters, including scale, layout, appearance, and landscaping. Mr Dillon highlighted that the main change to the proposal was the realignment of one of the buildings, which officers considered an improvement.

Councillor Ross Houston acknowledged that the committee was constrained by the outline planning permission, but welcomed the engagement from the developer and the improvements made to the scheme. He raised concerns about the affordability of the housing, as 95% of it would be at 80% of market rent, and urged the developer to consider increasing the amount of social housing.

Jenny Arthur, a local resident, spoke in objection, arguing that four storeys was too high and out of character for the area, and that the affordable housing was not truly affordable for NHS staff. She also raised concerns about poor transport links and increased traffic congestion.

Jonathan Jonas, another objector, highlighted that there had not been a public presentation of the November 2024 plans, and raised concerns about the accuracy of the applicant's traffic modelling and the affordability of the housing.

David Holmes, the agent for the applicant, explained that the development would provide much-needed affordable housing for NHS key workers, who often fall into a void between traditional affordable housing and the open market. He stated that the scheme had evolved positively from the outline stage, with lower built form, removal of undercroft elements, and increased green space.

Following questions from the committee, Councillor Young proposed adding an informative to condition 2 to reflect the comments of the urban designer, and amending condition 14 to require the applicant to secure secure by design accreditation for the scheme. The committee unanimously agreed to add the informative and amend the condition. The committee then voted to grant reserved matters approval, subject to the amended conditions and informatives.