Storming the Town Hall: Barnet Tories, the lie of 'Regeneration' - and the May Elections

 

Last week I was asked by a BBC journalist preparing for the May elections in London about the prospect of a Labour win in Barnet. Yes, this is a real thing. Hold on to your hats.

There has been much speculation in the last week or so about a number of Tory held London boroughs that may well be taken by Labour: my view is that - for the first time in the ten years or so since I've been writing about local politics - it seems more likely than not that such a result is a genuine possibility, here in Barnet, and increasingly begins to look like the most likely outcome. 

Tory canvassers are secretly panicking, and Labour canvassers reporting more and more former Tory voters who are no longer prepared to support the party in this borough.

The reasons for this are pretty obvious: although in the past local elections were about local issues, certainly this time round they will be strongly influenced by national concerns: Covid, Brexit - the universal sense of disgust at the corruption and incompetence of Boris Johnson's government. Another important factor is the impact of new ward boundary changes: in this borough, changes that favour Labour.

Most important of all, however, in Barnet, is the disaffection of what were traditional Tory voters as a result of the dire performance of council services managed and delivered by the authority's contractor, Capita - and because of the ever encroaching plague of manic over development in the borough, a phenomenon which now has even the leafiest areas entirely in its relentless grip. Over development which is not being supported by any adequate level of investment in desperately needed infrastructure and support in terms of schools, healthcare, parks, parking, transport - retail outlets. In many cases the developments are removing such community assets in the course of clearing the way for profit driven 'regeneration'. 

Far from meeting local housing need, this non stop process is being promoted purely for the benefit of developers, and for Capita, which amongst the fat portfolio of contracts it still retains, holds planning the most desirable. Most desirable, because it is the most lucrative: capable, as we have seen, of generating huge levels of profit for the company, in terms of fee based income streams, such as the deeply non-transparent pre-application 'advice' service for developers and their agents: some of the latter having been only recently senior planning officers with ... Barnet/Capita. Applications with fee based advice, data obtained by FOI suggests, are far more likely to be successful.

Remember that, despite the issue having been raised - by me and others - constantly over several years of the contract, it is only recently that the service that Capita Re offered to applicants and agents to 'name your own planning officer' has been quietly dropped, despite the clear risk of 'conflicts of interest' - especially in the case of the agents who are former colleagues of the planning officers with whom they deal.

Last year, raising the question of why details about pre-planning advice, and the name of the planning officer who was dealing with it, had vanished from Capita Re's application forms, I was told that this was due to changes by the government. Lo and behold, last week, on checking the application form for another awful development - six blocks plotted for the former Homebase site in North Finchley - there again was the question, on the form, but ignored. Yes, fee based advice had been paid for. Tick. What was it? 'As advised.' Who gave it? 'Mr.' Mr Who? They weren't saying. Why not?

Back to the old Barnet/Capita tradition of counter transparency then,  and a practice that obscures and obstructs our right to know how large developments are enabled and encouraged by the privatised planning service. On raising this again and complaining about the practice, I was offered no explanation but - a meeting with the Head of Planning, to discuss the matter. Nothing further has happened about that, funnily enough. 

Until very recently, as well as planning, Capita ran 'regeneration' in Barnet. This is an activity which purports to bring new life to failing communities, but does this by removing the people who live there - and any of those community assets that get in the way, like libraries - and inviting in developers to make whopping profits from luxury housing developments: the taller the better, although the tallest only in Labour wards, of course. 

Regeneration, for Capita, went by the name of 'development opportunities', and there is almost no town centre, suburb or open space in the borough which has not been targeted for these appalling schemes. 

In West Hendon, land worth millions was given to Barratt London in a secret deal, secret, that is, until revealed by the requirement for disclosure at the CPO Inquiry. 

Finchley Memorial Hospital: plans hatched in secret, again, and accidently exposed some years ago, were last year, during Covid, slipped out under the clever cover now of providing homes for NHS workers - to be built on the local community green space. There is nothing to stop these properties being sold on the open market, in fact, rather than to key workers, who are very unlikely to be queuing up for them (as other attempted developments of this type have shown) and it is highly likely this will happen, after the usual plea of non viability is put in, at a later stage. 

North Finchley is now being laid wide open to another assault in the name of 'regeneration': more unaffordable housing, and developers being given, by our Tory councillors, the local Arts Depot, and ... the lovely, historic library. Which brings us back to ... yes, the Hendon Hub. 

Barnet Tories think this is an appropriate development for the middle of a Conservation area

The story of the Hendon Hub development is hugely significant, because it perfectly demonstrates almost every rotten element of what has gone wrong not only in this Tory run authority, but on a national scale, encouraged by the current government.

Conflicts of interest in abundance, at every level of the council; hidden agendas, mass development given a free hand, regardless of the impact on the built environment, our built heritage, and our communities, all promoted by commercial interests, and here in Barnet, too many Tory councillors with little or no interest in representing the people who elected them, nearly four years ago. 

Unfortunately for the Tories in Barnet, their failure to restrain the extent to which their privatised regeneration and planning services operate has now fatally compromised their own electoral chances in May. 

The council's contractors will hardly be bothered what happens then. They have had a good run in Barnet: most of their fees came from the process of organising 'Regeneration' and planning, rather than the end result itself.

Recently the inevitable moment came when more failing services were taken back from Capita, as well as Regeneration. This is no major loss to them at this stage: there is pretty much nothing left that they can develop - but it has happened too late to prevent the detrimental impact on many residential areas and town centres. And in Hendon, the Hub land grab, memorably described by one resident last week, as a 'brutal acquisition', cooked up years ago, but kept under cover until late on in the process, has infuriated local residents who live in the heart of the oldest and most historic part of Hendon, which has dozens of listed buildings, and comprises not one but two Conservation Areas. And of course these residents are the sort of people the Tories desperately need to support them, in order to hold on to their seats.

Only one Hendon Tory councillor, Nizza Fluss, has had the courage and integrity necessary to oppose these plans, and truly represent her constituents, who, as the ludicrous 'nonsultation' process demonstrated, are outraged by the attempt to force a development of crashingly ugly, modern multi storey blocks - supposedly intended as student accommodation and other campus space for the ever expanding Middlesex University. Ever expanding in the past, that is: post Covid, post Brexit, these plans are clearly no longer viable, you would think. It makes no difference. Development must be pushed wherever there is an opportunity for profit.

Tory Cllr Nizza Fluss, who has bravely opposed the Hub plan - to her cost

Cllr Fluss was deselected by certain fellow party members in the Hendon Tory association, following her opposition of the Hub development.

Barnet Tories don't like women who answer back, or do the right thing, instead of doing as they are told, by the men, of course. 

On the 10th January, at a meeting of the Strategic Planning Committee, at Hendon Town Hall, in the centre of one of the two Conservation areas at risk from the Hub plans,Tory members ignored the unanimous, detailed and clearly articulated opposition to the plans from residents, and approved the plans in a remarkable show of unity on a planning decision which of course is supposed not be whipped.

One thing that emerged from the (strictly limited by the Chair) farce of pretending to consider the arguments for and against the plans, at this meeting, was that the much vaunted replacement library, which is allegedly going to be squeezed into the ground floor and basement of the planned Rotunda building opposite the Town Hall, is still shrinking in size, almost as if it will completely disappear, in the end. (Which is quite likely, in fact, like the Invisible New Library not built as promised in North Finchley).

When such fierce local opposition to the Hub plans had become apparent, half way through the Nonsultation, the developers tried to persuade residents of the benefits of having their listed library taken away - given away, and gutted - they attempted then to make the scheme seem more 'community focused' by declaring the library would now accommodate a Safer Neighbourhood police unit. 

Whether or not they checked if the Met can actually afford to staff such a unit is not known - but clearly this eats into the space meant for the substitute library. 835 square metres reduced to 675. Which must accommodate every other library function: adult & children's borrowing, PCs, stacks, storage, staff space, study areas, printers, a community area & all the other lovely new functions they dangled in front of residents, like 'Makerspaces'. Ah: but hang on - we've forgotten Local Studies and Archives, which currently require 160 square metres - and specialised storage for documents. Which leaves ...  515 square metres - not even a third of Hendon Library's original space. To put it in terms that are easier to visualise, this is less than the space of two tennis courts - for all the normal library functions, of what was once the central borough library, plus the extra wonderful things they claimed would be there. It just doesn't make sense, does it?

You can listen to a recording of this meeting here - and marvel at the way the Tory members pushed through the hugely unpopular plans, ignoring all reasoned objections. Some light relief is afforded by the Chair who steamrollered the meeting to its conclusion failing to remember her mic was picking up her whispered remarks, throughout the meeting, to senior officers ...

There was a pronounced sense of somewhat desperate, blind determination from those pushing through this proposal at the meeting, that night. I suppose they were keen to get the plans underway before May - if indeed they go ahead. 

As this meeting and other related matters are now understood to be the subject of more than one very serious complaint, I am not going to comment in detail on what happened, or the further implications: but it is reported that there are some deeply alarming issues which have emerged from the meeting itself, and from the process of 'consultation', over the last year or so. 

Watch this space.

One characteristic of Barnet Tories is that, like lemmings, they will head towards danger with free abandon, thinking that they are immune from any consequences. Frankly, most of them are pretty dim, and don't care about much other than retaining their seats., which usually requires nothing more than unquestioning loyalty to the current leader - and a safe seat, of course. None of them are politically astute, and the current leader is particularly tone deaf when it comes to gauging the mood of voters. Still, it came as a real surprise to see their latest idiotic move. 

You may recall that a few years ago, the Tory group supported a truly awful Motion to Full Council, proposed by the golden boy himself, Cllr Longstaffe, claiming that the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, is 'An Enemy of the People'. Bad enough, you might think. Here comes another one., this time proposed by the Tory 'Leader', Dan Thomas, and due to be 'debated at tonight's Full Council meeting. 

This puerile nonsense reads as if it was written by Thomas, in biro, on the back of a shopping list, to be honest: publishing it all here, however, so you can see the extent of sheer childishness and mendacity of this motion, and this Tory group, attacking the Opposition, with rather touching lack of awareness of the theory of Freudian projection (to say nothing about the curious accusation of 'impotence' ...)

Political Discourse Within Barnet

Council notes that:

1. The Barnet Labour Party and members of the Opposition have made misleading claims about this Administration’s policies and achievements.

2. Contrary to Barnet Labour’s misinformation:

a. Barnet has not only maintained weekly collections of refuse and recycling under this

Conservative administration, unlike any neighbouring borough – which are all run by

Labour– but we also have the lowest number of missed bin collections in London.

This is of course a feeble attempt to play, without permission, a round of 'Angry About Bins' (© Mrs Angry) but scoring an own goal, from the council which has stupidly stopped collecting food waste, and now charges householders an annual fee for the privilege of having their green waste collected - occasionally.

b. Council Tax in Barnet has been kept lower than that of any of our neighbouring boroughs for

the past decade, and will remain so. In real terms, Council Tax in Barnet has been reduced by

5.2% over the past decade — despite the Labour Mayor of London taking an ever-increasing

sum from Council Tax.

Barnet Tories kept council tax so low, they were unable properly to fund basic council services. In one particularly infamous incident, they cut desperately needed funding for respite care for the families of children with profound and complex disabilities, so they could boast about reducing the tax bill by the equivalent of  a few pence a week.  The families were reduced to having to go in person to the council to demand this funding restored - only to be told that their children were making too much noise in the committee room. Public outrage saw the cut grudgingly reversed, after this appalling move: but what a thing to do ...

c. Barnet has zero “non-decent” Council homes, while our neighbouring boroughs have

thousands. Labour Enfield alone have over 4,000.

'Zero non decent council homes'. Got that? Apart from the fact that thousands of homeless residents have been kicked out of the borough, the Dear Leader seems to have forgotten his own appearance on the Victoria Derbyshire show (after refusing to appear the week before) trying to defend the truly abominable condition of flats in West Hendon, in which council tenants' children were forced to live with cockroaches biting them, rats running around their homes, and their walls covered in mould.

d. Barnet’s outsourcing has saved millions – ensuring value for money for our residents.

Ah yes. The old story. Utterly untrue. The short list of guaranteed savings is restricted, and minimal, and pales in comparison to the many, many millions surplus paid to Capita, so far, that was never foreseen, although it should have been, by the Tory councillors who signed the contracts

e. Barnet has successfully stood up to developers and has been successful in having storeys

removed from proposed towers. The ineffectual Labour group is impotent to influence the

Labour Mayor of London’s desire for ever larger tower blocks in London. This is evidenced by

the Mayor’s support for the original B&Q proposal and those regarding tower blocks over

tube stations, such as a recent High Barnet application.

Frankly this is so risible, it is hard to know where to begin. Or end. It is reported that the Monitoring Officer removed the word 'wilful' in regard to the idiotic accusations against Labour - but why was this Motion allowed to stand at all?

'Barnet has successfully stood up to developers' ? What a f*cking joke.

Tory Barnet has actively welcomed and encouraged, with the help of Capita, a scale of over development that has ignored the real housing needs of ordinary families. The needs of developers are put before all other considerations.

Clearly the Labour group - and the Labour AM, Anne Clarke, are able to communicate effectively with the Mayor of London to moderate any multi-storey plans, or he would not have done so, in regard to the tube station developments. Perhaps if the Tory group were not set on smearing the Mayor as an "enemy of the People", he might be more inclined to include them in a grown up discussion about the borough's needs.

For Thomas even to dare to pretend to oppose multi storey blocks is absurd. These have gone up all over the Western side of the borough, carefully avoiding the Tory areas elsewhere - except in Hendon's Conservation areas, where clearly something has gone awfully wrong in their judgement, and someone's influence has convinced them to commit electoral suicide, rather than listen to the overwhelming objections of their local residents. 

f. This Conservative Council would not and will not build on our parks or green spaces. This has been made clear a number of times over the past year in various committees and at Full Council.

This statement is on a Johnsonian scale of 'fiction'. The Tories approved the development of the community green space at Finchley Memorial Hospital last June, despite fierce opposition from local residents incensed at the loss of their amenity. They were caught considering the use of 'low value' parks and green spaces for placing solar energy facilities and battery storage. And last year saw the construction of a block of flats in Victoria Park, after they sold off and allowed the demolition of the historic, Arts & Crafts style park keeper's Lodge. 

3. The above are responses to only some examples of the mistruths stated by the Labour group.

4. The Labour Party and Labour councillors made exaggerated claims during the East Barnet by election, which the people of East Barnet clearly saw through. However, such claims risk causing polarisation, unnecessary upset and worry amongst local residents.

Ah. Presumably a reference to the hugely inappropriate Gas Works development, which proposes more of those blocks Thomas claims to oppose, but is apparently happy to see in an area with too many Labour voters. The only affordable housing here will punish the undeserving poor by shoving them right next to the railway line, with windows that can't open, (because of the noise levels being too high for approval). Once they realised the flats will over heat, as a consequence, they have designed a cooling system that the already disadvantaged tenants will have to pay for. 

But just imagine: Barnet Tories accusing someone else of 'causing polarisation'!

And on we go:

Council believes that:

1. Misinformation about the state of the Council, and this administration’s policies and history, are little more than a sign of desperation from the Labour group.

Misinformation from the Council, and its contractors and consultants, (eg in the case of the Hendon Hub - Historic England, anyone?) are ok though. Ok.

2. Over the past term and beyond, this Conservative Council has consistently made decisions based on value for money for our residents, while ensuring that they receive the best possible services.

Quite clearly decisions are not made on the basis of value for money, nor do they deliver the best possible services. Again, this is Johnsonian inversion of the truth, up ending the story of their own dreadful performance. 

Tax payers' money has been extracted on an eye watering, industrial scale from the Capita contracts, via income opportunities hidden at the time of signing in the form of contractual variations, unnoticed and by Tory members, before approving for a ten year term of bondage to the conditions. As fellow blogger John Dix can tell you, you and I and all the other residents have already paid hundreds of millions more than the expected amount.

That services are not the best possible is evident to anyone who walks along a tarmac patched pavement, or driven along the thousands of pot hole scarred roads, or tried to phone a council department, or had to chase enforcement of flagrant breaches of planning permission conditions, or visited a relative in a care home like Apthorp Lodge. 

Rather than in invest in new social housing that would benefit the most needy residents, or borrow state money in order to do so, Tory members preferred to borrow £22 million from the Public Works Loan Board to lend to their 'partners' at Saracens to build a lovely new stand at their Stadium, which was our Stadium, and for which they only pay a peppercorn rent. Value for money? Meanwhile families in West Hendon were living in utter squalor, and the Housing committee did not meet for eight months, because - 'there were no urgent issues'.

That over the last few years Tory members have sought to stifle challenge, engagement and consultation with their own residents is undeniable: changing the Constitution to prevent questions at committees where hugely important and controversial plans are decided being the keystone of their shameless and deliberate strategy of gagging dissent. 

This gagging has not only coincided with a period of increasing decline in the standard of council services, but also with a period of hugely expanded proposals for so called 'regeneration' and development. What a stroke of luck! 

Except that the Tories' luck is now running out. 

Poor leadership and recklessly poor judgement has made them complacent, and to take risks  that can only damage their electoral prospects. Tory voters are now queueing up to fight developments in their areas: the snatching of the community green space at Finchley Memorial is facing Judicial Review, and the Hendon Hub is being legally challenged, in various ways, as well as now being the subject of very serious complaints over ... related matters.

Roll on May: it's time to clear out the Augean stables, and rid ourselves of the rotten stench hanging around this Tory council and their collaborators. 

Time to bring the council back under democratic control, return local services in house, where true value for money can be achieved - and give a voice back to the residents whose representatives have, for so long, so blatantly betrayed them and their well being.

A Perfect Storm: Barnet's Tory pro-development council ignites an unprecedented scale of rebellion in its heartland voters

Undefeated by the storm, local residents protested against the Hendon Hub plans

On the 20th of July there was a Policy and Resources committee meeting at Hendon Town Hall, at which the highly controversial plans for the Hendon Hub development were due to be discussed by councillors. 

A huge crowd of residents campaigning against the plans gathered outside before the meeting. 

As they did so, the sky darkened, and thunder began to growl menacingly overhead, quickly followed by a downfall of heavy rain. 

It made no difference to the mood of the residents, or rather seem to galvanise their resolution: the British response to adversity tending as usual to obstinate refusal to accept being beaten. 

In this case, with most of the protestors being formerly non political, and inexperienced in attending demonstrations, there was an added sense of rebellion, and even jubilation. They were determined to show their elected representatives, skulking in the committee room upstairs, how strongly they felt about these monstrous plans to foist what will effectively be a campus colonisation of not just a residential neighbourhood, but the historic heart of Hendon, comprising not one but two Conservation Areas. 

Such a large protest had not been seen outside the Town Hall for a very long time, even pre-Covid.

Fellow blogger Mr Reasonable and I stood outside, astonished at the scale of the turn out, and the impressive organisation of the Residents' Group, led by Professor Brad Blitz, and Gabbie Asher. 

Local residents Professor Blitz and (hiding behind the poster) Gabbie Asher

Returning home, I listened to the meeting via the audio link. Always unpredictable, this broadcast system, especially when, it seems, anything politically significant is being debated. It was clear that the residents who had packed out the public gallery were not going to sit there quietly, letting the usual rubber stamping exercise play out, with the Tory majority pushing through the Capita Barnet officers' reports. An exemplary display of perfectly tuned heckling ensued, disrupting the android default programming of Chair and Tory leader Dan Thomas, whose attempts to use this as an excuse to end 'debate' and move to a vote was no doubt restrained by the knowledge that this would contribute to the already robust case for challenging the nonsultation process - which has been rolled out (with of course no conflict of interest), by Capita subsidiary GL Hearn).

Since the Tories amended the constitution in order to stop the far too effective scutiny of residents, questions to committee are now largely forbidden, but Gerrard Roots, former curator of the Church Farmhouse Museum - (also, as proposed for the listed Hendon Library, closed, ransacked & handed over to Middlesex Uni) - had managed to slip one through, and a gloriously impertinent and yet highly pertinent one it was: 

This is a dreadful proposal, concocted in secrecy in 2019, and

finally presented for public consultation during the chaos of

the pandemic. The plan would ruin the two 'Heritage

Conservation Areas' in Hendon. It would remove essential

services to residents, and replace them with vast new

Middlesex University buildings - including student halls of

residence which are unlikely now ever to be used. The sole

beneficiaries will be the big builders/developers. The plan is

so awful that even some LB Barnet Conservative councillors

(backed up by Hendon's Tory MP) have broken ranks to

oppose it. (Those councillors already appear to have been

punished for their decency.)

I wish to know if the rest of Barnet's Tory councillors regard

themselves as representatives of their residents or simply as

the servants of powerful developers?

Of course asking any question of a Tory run committee - should you be allowed to do so - is always pointless, but you cannot give them the pleasure of thinking their stifling of debate is ever going to be accepted, if you really believe in democracy, and justice, and holding power to account.

The meeting progressed, and it was time for councillors to ask questions of officers. Labour's Arjun Mittra asked the officer in charge of the Hub project about the involvement of Historic England. 

Here is a curious thing. 

Capita of course makes most of its money in Barnet from its exploitation of our planning system. A system which now works to promote development, and profits for Capita, rather than to regulate planning, or benefit our communities. 

If you make a planning application in the London Borough of Capita, you are encouraged to pay a fat fee to our privatised planning service for 'pre-application planning advice'. If your application is turned down you will probably receive a letter noting that you did not avail yourself of this service, tut tut, and inviting you to have another go, after paying to take said advice.  (Being in the process of moving house - sadly not escaping from Broken Barnet, but we can all dream, can't we? - and looking at the past planning applications of various properties has given an interesting insight into this interesting practice ...)

Of course it may be that you made some crashing error in your design, before paying for this 'advice'. It could not possibly be a way of generating more income, could it? And anyway, there will be a full record of what they come up with, and an audit trail, & all that sort of stuff.

Well, no. As Mr Reasonable discovered, when campaigners asked for copies of the Pre Application advice for the Barnet Gas Works development ... it transpired there was nothing at all. Advice had been given but ... no record of it exists. 

No need for transparency over this sort of thing. No need to worry about the number of former Barnet Capita planning officers now working as agents for developers, who will have rung up their former colleagues for 'advice'. No need to worry about conflicts of interest in the same teams overseeing 'advice', consultation, recommendations etc. 

Apparently. 

(And not to worry, after years of me bringing up the issue of paying a fee to name your own planning officer - and being ignored - that clear conflict of interest has now supposedly been quietly been disposed of. Why did it take so long: eight years, in fact?)

Interestingly, if a planning application is from the local authority itself for, say, hundreds of unnecessary units of student accommodation, and the virtual destruction of a listed Library, in a residential area, and not one but two Conservation areas, stuffed full of eighteenth century houses, an ancient parish church, a host of listed civic buildings, then - oh ...

There is, it seems, no need to take pre planning advice or guidance from the most obvious source, ie Historic England - at least, according to the senior officers of the London Borough of Capita.

Sitting at home, listening to the questions from Cllr Mittra at the P&R committee, I was absolutely astounded - and very cross - to hear the following response from the officer seemingly in charge of the Hub project, in answer to his question as to whether Barnet had engaged 'proactively' with Historic England - and erm, if it was not a resident who had informed them about the Hub plans?

No. It wasn't, she said. And she could prove this.

Oh really?

I knew this was could not be true. Councillors were being misinformed.

Because I was the resident who had informed Historic England, in April. And yes, I can prove it.

In April, I had written to HE with my concerns about the Hub plans, in terms of the scale of the impact on the Conservation areas and the threat to the listed library building. They responded, to my utter astonishment, with a response that said that they not only knew nothing about the Hub development, it had not been mentioned to them - even as they had been engaged in discussion with Barnet Capita officers, in February, over the draft local SPD plan. 

I say discussion: Historic England wrote to Barnet with criticisms of the draft. Barnet ignored these criticisms, as far as I can see from the final SPD.

HE even sent me a copy of the letter in which these criticisms are detailed: in which they objected to the many references to 'development opportunities' and criticised the lack of consideration for protecting heritage, and the character of this uniquely sensitive area- as well as noting the need to prevent multi storey buildings being erected. 

All of which, of course, is in direct conflict with the Hub plans, which as we now know, have been under consideration since at least 2019, and possibly even earlier. Yet this major proposal was one which LBB/Capita apparently decided to hide from Historic England, even when the new SPD was being drafted this February.

Engagement with HE only began when following enquiries from me and Professor Blitz, HE, alerted to the potential risk posed by the plans, said they would contact LBB. A meeting took place, according to the officer at P&R, only at the end of June, less than four weeks before this committee meeting. The officer informed members of the P&R committee that she had seen HE's report that morning. Yet the report had not been circulated to members, let alone added to the published documents, even though other late amendments were, at the last minute. 

Back to the Hendon Hub. You might reasonably expect that if Capita Re advice is needed at an early stage in the process of designing Mrs Bloggs's kitchen extension, Capita Re might be expected to consult HE about such crashingly inappropriate designs for two Conservation areas at an early stage, rather than so late in the day. 

You might expect officers to pass HE's report to members before the meeting in which they were due to make a decision. 

Unless, of course, there was a determination to avoid any criticism, no matter how valid, from HE, at a stage when it might influence and possibly obstruct the proposal to erect such hideous and architecturally anachronistic student blocks - or even prevent what will be the virtual destruction of the listed Hendon Library.

As it happened, Labour members exercised their right to refer part of the decision, the business case, to Full Council, the following week. 

Residents then again gathered outside the Town Hall, making noisy representations to the councillors in the chamber.

By some strange circumstance, this time the audio link ... was not available. And no recording, it later turned out,  was possible. How unfortunate that a debate and vote on this highly contentious proposal now has no record. 

The excuse was that the storm the previous week, before the P&R meeting, had meant a lightning strike had selectively prevented the broadcast of Full Council. Even though other meetings during the week had not been affected. An Act of God, you see?

Hendon ward councillor Nizza Fluss was the only Tory who voted against approval of the Hub plans. She has been deselected since earlier taking this stand, which of course rather suggests that this was because of daring to oppose the leadership on this issue. Potentially evidence, as they now realise, rather late in the day, of 'pre-decision' in regard to this highly contentious proposal. 

Curiously, however, after this vote, Cllr Fluss was not deprived of the whip, or punished for her rebellion, unlike the only previous time I can remember, ten years ago, when a Tory member refused to support a motion in Full Council. Of course one vote would never had made any difference. Anyway, rumour has it that she will be offered a chance of standing in Childs Hill ward, instead. There may be a vacancy, as Councillor Shimon Ryde, most mysteriously, has temporarily 'stepped back' from the Conservative group, for reasons to do with a 'personal' matter  - temporarily since May, that is. 

If it is true, one might reasonably ask why she is now considered suitable for selection in this ward, but was dropped from the one in which she was elected. Is this an attempt at damage limitation?

Local Tory councillor Nizza Fluss, who has opposed the Hub plans - and who has now been deselected by Hendon Tories.

At Full Council, despite further visible (and audible) opposition from residents, the plans were approved, at the point they are now. So what next? The plans continue to be pushed through, of course.

But hello: here is an interesting revelation. 

You may not realise that once a year residents have the right to inspect the accounts of their local authority. Fellow blogger John Dix, aka Mr Reasonable, always makes sure to assert this right, and apply his own analysis of the information he is able to scrutinise. It is of course a statutory requirement that residents may have access to the accounts in this way. If it wasn't, you can be sure that Barnet Tories and their senior management team would do everything in their power to stop anyone seeing this material. 

The devil, in Broken Barnet, as always, is everywhere, but above all, in the age of Capita, he is to be found hidden in the detail - hidden in the books, in the fine print, in footnotes, or those naughty contractual variations that opened up endless possibilities for further income generation for our contractors. 

From Mr R's perusal of the last year's accounts, anyway, emerged two very remarkable pieces of information, in regard to the Hendon Hub. 

It seems Capita have already done very nicely out of the Hendon Hub proposals. 

Included in the accounts was:

"... a request for CSG to provide professional services for the development and submission of planning applications required to support the Hendon Regeneration Project; and the necessary professional services to complete the Final Business Case and progress both the funding and construction partner procurement strategies". 

Between November 2020 and March 2021 alone they were paid £2,280,587 for such work. Nice work if you can get it - and in Broken Barnet Capita can and will always get it. An 8,000 page contract, signed unread by Tory members, says so.

There are other fees, and more are expected to come to light, of course: just for writing the Hub business case they earned £31,928. Kerrching!

Oh, but ... what's this invoice, billed to some unknown company? 

'Hendon Hub Heritage Advice'? 

"This SPIR is for the Provision of Heritage advice on a Masterplan Proposal that includes a number of listed properties in the Townscape, from Pre-planning to full Planning approval and discharge of conditions ..." 

Two payments: one for £33,597 in October 2020 and a second one of £4,042 in January 2021. Paid to whom, I don't know. 

But how curious that apparently some sort of 'heritage advice' was paid for in October and in January, but no consultation took place with Historic England until residents told them about the Hub, and no meeting took place until June, less than a month before P&R! Perhaps the advice was along the lines of 'don't tell Historic England about these plans, & hope no one grasses you up in the meanwhile?'

Here is the most important thing to remember, however, and perhaps even some of our more dopey Tory members have not grasped this yet. Capita's best interests are not so much in seeing through so called regeneration and development plans to the moment of construction, but in the course of the very process of encouraging and managing development proposals, from which they extract fees. Look at the millions already chiselled out of the Brent Cross Cricklewood plans, plans which may never end in anything like the vision worked up so many years ago. 

Capita has come to Barnet with a list of development opportunities which it is pursuing with grim determination, regardless of the impact on our communities of what is now seemingly an unstoppable process of overdevelopment - on an epidemic scale. 

Barnet's Tory councillors are of course pro-development: several work in this area, or in services connected with it - and many are landlords. 

Although some effort is being made by the more politically astute development pushers in the council to hide behind a pretence of giving residents things they don't need, such as a new library in Finchley Central (which mysteriously still has no 'Library' sign attached to it, presumably so as to deter use) or apparently socially benevolent plans such as the Finchley Memorial 'Homes for Heroes', presented so as to justify the confiscation of community green space for a load of ugly blocks that will almost certainly end up on the open market, rather than for the 'key workers' they claim will live there.

The Hendon Hub they thought gave them an excuse to push development in a Conservation area under the guise of providing something Middlesex Uni didn't need, ie student accommodation for which there was no real call, pre Brexit and pre Covid, and certainly is not now. Interesting to see Cllr Gabriel Rozenberg ask a question which revealed there was effectively nothing to stop these blocks becoming residential properties, should the plans prove unviable. What a surprise!

In the meanwhile, in Hendon, residents are fighting back: a well organised and funded campaign group is already engaged in a legal challenge of the proposed development. Letters before action have been sent, earlier in the summer. The response, which appeared only at the very last moment, claimed, preposterously, that any challenge focused on the SPD plan for the area is premature, as the SPD 'has not been approved' ...

Yes, you may be perplexed by this. It was of course approved by a Tory majority on July 20th, at the Policy and Resources committee, and the following week's Full Council. If this is their best effort, well ... campaigners are on to a winner.

More games are reportedly being played with local Hendon stakeholders, as noted on the Hendon campaigners' Facebook group: 

Mid-consultation, “in response to our feedback”, some of the student units in the giant new buildings on The Burroughs were reallocated for social housing. 

 

The general public were told it was for nurses and independent living for young adults. 

The African Cultural Centre was told it was for disadvantaged young “BAME” people.

 

Some Jewish residents have been told it’s for an Ultra-Orthodox Jewish charity who provide housing for people with special needs and large housing units for extended families.

   

Which are we to believe, if any?

None of it, is my guess.

Hendon campaigners been there, seen that - and produced some T shirts: now you can help by donating to the legal challenge fund here. Above, Gabbie Asher

Now here in Finchley there is a rather puzzling new nonsultation on the question of whether residents like me would like to see a new 'public square' in our high street. Doesn't that sound lovely? Let's have a look at the plans. You know, the details, the small print etc ... oh: is that a whiff of sulphur? 

Now where in Finchley, you might ask, could we have a public square, and what would we use it for? Protests against an oppressive authority, perhaps? Think Place de la Concorde, or Tiananmen Square, or even Trafalgar Square, poll tax riots, etc. 

No. 'To create an inclusive space'. Ah. 

Healthy and green. Ok ... quite a challenge, in that location ... 

And of course with 'a regular market offer'. Marvellous. An inclusive space. Market 'offer'. Sounds good.

Except that the place that Capita and chums are thinking of is outside Tesco, and maybe across the road from Tesco. Well yes, with the ceaseless, toxic traffic of Ballards Lane running through it: displacing the shelter 'offer' depended on by Finchley's desperate homeless citizens, and the pigeon feeding station, and the fag break area used by employees at the offices above Tesco and oh: hang on.

The offices above Tesco ... remember that presentation that Capita officers were obliged to make, a couple of summers ago, for Finchley residents, at which there were helpful lists of the 'development opportunities' they had identified in our area, swiftly whisked away and never seen again? To my astonishment, yes, hidden in the detail, had been a proposal to build on and around Tescos, more unaffordable housing. 

Bla bla bla: a photo taken of an uncharacteristically quiet Ballards Lane shows the location proposed for an alleged 'town square' ... with a busy road in the middle, surrounded by all the new development they forgot to mention ...

And hidden in the latest nonsultation is a clue as to how they will pay for the unasked for act of generosity in providing a supposed  'town square' that will be nothing of the sort. In fact it is so well hidden, I can't find it again. Suffice it to say that the 'infill' development of Finchley is the price you will be expected to pay for this nonsense. Who knew? 

Me.

Well: ok. Infill my neighbourhood, regardless of Conservation areas, or local history, or listed buildings, or the hard won character of our suburbs. Build on my community open space. Sell off part of my park and shove up a block of flats.  Ignore the real housing needs of residents, especially those who are disadvantaged, or social tenants: ship them off to Peterborough. Throw bucketloads of my council tax at Capita, while you do it. 

Problem is that you can allow a privatised planning service to push the destruction of our built heritage only just so far. 

There is a tipping point, which we have now reached, and passed, where the political impact of such policy begins to turn voters that Barnet Tories need to stay in power against them. 

The uprising over the Hendon Hub folly is the most obvious example of this: as we have seen, previously loyal Tory voters have had enough, and are not taking it any more. 

In Barnet the truly awful Gas Works proposals are having the same effect, even though they are in the less Tory loyalist part of the constituency. Fortunately fellow blogger Mr Reasonable has been helping the residents' campaign to fight the latest, awful plans, in which the few social tenants will be shoved next to the railway track with windows that won't open, and obliged to pay for air conditioning for their overheated rooms. 

More information here: there is still time to object to this awful development: it's not that people think there should be no housing built here, it is a question of the density of the units proposed, which will unload a huge extra burden on the local schools and health care services - and the low standard of design, tiny apartments to maximise profit.

In Edgware, another mass development is planned (and will surround the neglected, listed Railway Hotel, recently having suffered the third fire in six years). 

In North Finchley Capita are pushing yet another faux regeneration, backed by Barnet Tory leader, Dan Thomas, seen in a rare appearance here, in which they are plotting to flog off the 'refurbished' shrunken library, the Arts Depot, and two car parks to a developer, Regal London. 

Yes, getting rid of another library, after spending £14 million on cutting the service to shreds, under the guise of 'refurbishment'. It was always about this, biding time before they could point to carefully engineered declining use, directly the consequence of devaluing and undermining the library service, so they could flog off the sites. 

North Finchley Library, 'refurbished' at vast public expense in 2017 - in fact robbed of its children's library - now to be flogged off by Barnet Tories

Does it serve the best interests of residents and taxpayers, to sell off such community assets? Or is this all so as to increase the fees for Capita, and the profits of private developers? Yes. 

Does it meet local housing need? No. 

Recently a poll revealed that both Hendon and Chipping Barnet constituencies are at risk of being won by Labour. Finchley's fate hangs in the balance too, if and when the boundaries are redrawn. The sky is darkening: the inevitable storm moves ever closer.

Barnet Tories have a chance now: call a stop to the pillaging of our borough by Capita and developers, and return to the people whose interests they are meant to represent the power to decide how their communities will be managed ... or continue on the road to perdition, and the end of their feckless administration, brought about entirely by their own hands. They won't, unless the faction that is pro development, to the point of weakening their own hold on power, is overcome by the few senior Tories who have more sense. 

Relatively speaking, of course.

Watch this space.

Hendon campaigner Hayley Blitz

Countdown to failure, for Barnet Tories, and Casting the Net: a Week in Broken Barnet

Labour Cllr Anne Clarke, AM

As predicted, the recent London Assembly elections saw Roberto Weeden Sanz, the Tory candidate for Barnet and Camden, soundly beaten by Labour's Anne Clarke, and we also waved a fond goodbye to no hoper Shaun Bailey, who stood against Sadiq Khan for Mayor of London. 

Anne Clarke deserved to win: she is a remarkably intelligent, hardworking, dedicated and conscientious advocate for her council ward of Childs Hill, and is known for her hands on approach to community work.

Roberto Weeden Sanz did not deserve to win, for several reasons: first and foremost the fact that he chose as mentor for his campaign the disgraced former Tory councillor and AM Brian Coleman. Yes, it appears local Tories have quietly allowed him back into the party, despite his history which includes, as fellow blogger Roger Tichborne reminds us today, a conviction for the assault in the street of a woman, cafe owner Helen Michael: you can see the footage and a report of the trial here.

Weeden Sanz, on his twitter profile, boasts that he is a 'White Ribbon' Ambassador. As you can see on their website, this honour is supposed to be held by men who pledge to be a positive male role model, "working with us to change the cultures that lead to violence against women".

Barnet Tories never apologised to Helen Michael for the assault, or for not believing her account of the attack, even after the court footage was published and she was proven to be telling the truth. 

Another truth is that a lack of respect for women is deeply embedded in the core of the Barnet Tory group. They amended the council constitution a few years ago to ensure the Chairs of any committee were to be referred to as 'Chairmen', even if chaired by a woman. One of the few women in the group, long serving councillor Joan Scannell, when viciously deselected by them after years of loyal service, made a speech at her last meeting, accusing them of misogyny. And that the spokesperson for their group on the issue of violence against women is a man, rather than a woman, is only to be expected.

It was Coleman himself who stupidly let the cat out of the bag: after rumours that he was back in the party and coaching Weeden Sanz for a glorious victory in the Assembly elections, he could not resist answering criticism of his pupil's non attendance at two hustings events by claiming 'they' were too busy: 

His account was immediately locked, no doubt under orders from local Tories. Too late. And lo and behold, the woman whom Coleman tries to insult by calling her 'the Cricklewood Housewife' was duly elected to the London Assembly.

At the count, Weeden Sanz was accompanied by the Tory group leader Dan Thomas - and Brian Coleman. And there you have it: the absolute inability of Barnet Tories to move into the 21st century, accept that women, even those Coleman once referred to as 'old hags', even housewives in NW2 - have won the right to vote, the right to be elected to office - and the right to respect.

One immediate effect of the Labour victory was to serve as a warning to local Tory MPs not to take for granted the idea that their own seats were safe, or that next year's local elections  would not be a hard contest. 

Not such a surprise, therefore, that last Thursday's online nonsultation event with the promoters of the highly controversial Hendon Hub saw Hendon MP Matthew Offord not only in virtual attendance - at one point his voice heard faintly over the ether, like a long dead uncle, drowned at sea, being channelled at a seance - at last speaking out in solidarity with the multitude of residents objecting to the monstrous development that is proposed for not one, but two Conservation Areas. He now has to catch up with Anne Clarke and Labour's Sara Conway, also present , and who have been listening to residents since it was first mooted.

This event was well attended, with more than 80 online participants, including, I noted with amusement, the consultants who had told me no one knew how big the alleged new library would be, because it hadn't really been designed: and then I received the information that didn't exist via a  separate FOI request, which was ... curious.

The plotters are now claiming to listen to residents and to have modified the plans. Well: yes we are still expected to put up with hideous seven storey blocks in the Conservation areas, and watch them knock our listed library to pieces, but .... they might only accommodate 600 students instead of 800, and they might have a token gesture of a small amount of 'affordable housing' and they might not move the PDSA base to the other side of the borough, and they might find room for the local police Safer Neighbourhood team (no, not more police resources, just a room). They might. 

Anyone who has followed the pattern of major developments in Barnet in the years of Capita knows that non binding promises ain't worth the paper they're not written on, and even conditions granted as part of Planning Permission can be helpfully modified by officers later, if the poor developer, cap in hand, and handkerchief to his tear soaked cheeks, claims that his development will no longer be viable if the nasty spoilsport councillors insist on his providing affordable housing or money for so called community projects that no one needs. Such as was suggested here: new park entrances (why?) and tarting up Brent Street (how?)! Whoopee! 

Also funny was watching the contortions they were obliged to assume - we are 'casting the net', they assured us - in order to try to explain why, despite planning officers being in communication with Historic England, in regard to the local plan and SDP, and Historic England telling them off for not mentioning in the draft the limitations necessary in Conservation areas for the protection of heritage buildings, the developers knew NOTHING about this and had NOTHING to do with it. Erm.

Capita jointly owns Capita Re, which runs planning in Barnet.

Capita owns GL Hearn, who are running the Hendon Hub nonsultation.

In fact, until I contacted them, Historic England knew NOTHING about the Hendon Hub proposals, even though clearly it presents a direct and serious threat to dozens of listed buildings, and two Conservation areas, and even though the development plans have been in the making since at least June 2019, when the plan was accidentally published with committee papers, and hastily removed, too late, and even though the Hub proposals breach the limitation Historic England has put on multi storey buildings in the area, despite Capita Barnet forgetting to include this in the draft SDP. 

Got that? Read it again.

Funniest of all was the running commentary on the group chat to which furious residents were contributing, with great enthusiasm, and which, as the consultants reminded them sternly, should be made remembering that they would be Noted as Part of the Nonsultation. Good. Probably the consultants won't want to look at them again without wearing dark glasses or taking sedation.

Offord - who lives in the area - would be a complete fool if he ignored the strength and scale of objection to this idiotic proposal. Hendon is regarded as a Tory area, but in these strange times there is no longer such a thing as a safe seat: and what Capita and developers are trying to push  through here is effectively the imposition of a modern day campus on not only a residential area, but also a sensitive historic area, with a rich abundance of built heritage -  and archaeology. The impact of these totally unviable plans would be unimaginable. The impact on core Tory voters would be unprecedented. 

In fact this is a pattern now emerging all over the Borough, and all three MPs must be aware, as should the Tory council group. By allowing Barnet to be an 'open city' for developers, through their privatised planning and regeneration services, they are alienating their own natural born voters, outraged at the scale of overdevelopment, and the impotence of usually tame Tory ward members & MPs  in doing anything to stop it.

Coming to a Conservation area near you soon: the Hendon Hub development, courtesy @barnettories

I think it's fair to say that on Thursday night, the promoters of this plan, including representatives of Middlesex University, looked astonished at the vehemence and articulation of those who are expected to live with the heart torn out of their neighbourhood. 

Capita will continue to make a profit from the process of consultation and preparation, whether or not the plans are ever put in place. Middlesex Uni and local politicians have to live with the consequences. And if they think the outcome is not going to be an absolute disaster for all concerned, they have made a bad miscalculation. 

Watch this space.

Hubble Bubble: More toil and trouble in Hendon - Historic England sidelined by the Hub developers

St Mary's Church, Hendon, by Alan Sorrell, 1937

Almost every day now, a new revelation about the Hendon Hub development emerges from the shadows. Today's story is about the heritage and conservation issues which are so central - or should be - to the consultation process that is required for such proposals. 

Last week I wrote to Historic England with my concerns about the threat posed by the Hendon Hub plan to the two Conservation Areas in the Burroughs and Church End, Hendon, and the plan to demolish all but the facade of the listed Hendon Library.

To my astonishment, a prompt response informed me that they knew nothing of these proposals.

This was despite the fact that they had, as recently as February, been in communication with Barnet about the associated local SPD plan - the draft plan of the Burroughs and Middlesex University Planning Framework Supplementary Planning Document. 

They forwarded a copy of the letter sent to Barnet, in which they highlighted the fact that the SPD did not sufficiently address matters of heritage and conservation. Here is the summary of points made:

This letter was sent on the 22nd February to a senior Capita Re planning policy officer, from an Historic Environment Planning Adviser. Yet Historic England were not told about the massive development in the conservation areas for which the process of public consultation - the nonsultation -  would begin only four days later: and HE knew nothing about the plans until I wrote last week. 

My spies tell me that Historic England has now contacted Barnet/Capita Re to discuss the proposals.

Let's take another look at this letter. 

You will note that it criticises the inclusion of 'Key Opportunity Sites'. 

These are sites Capita has identified for development potential. In the draft SPD, significantly, there are no less than 67 references to development - and only 11 references to conservation. 

Proof, if any were needed, that Capita's management of planning in this borough, even in the heart of this uniquely sensitive historic area, is deliberately prioritised, not as you would expect, so as to preserve the built heritage, but in order to identify potentially lucrative sites for development, from which the company will benefit financially, not least in terms of contractual fees.

These plans have been known about since at least June 2019, when a resident raised questions about it at a committee meeting, after the council accidentally published information which should have been exempt, and let the cat out of the bag. They refused to answer his questions. 

But what this means is that the covert plot to push a massive development into the heart of the two conservation areas has been a long time in the making. And yet they had not consulted Historic England, even as they were obliged to discuss the draft SDP with them. 

It is also significant that the draft SDP has been criticised by HE for preparing the way for what we now know had already been designed for the Hub, ie high rise buildings - the ugly and obtrusive student accommodation blocks, up to seven storeys high - buildings absolutely out of character with the surrounding historic area, which boasts a large range of early eighteenth century buildings, a thousand year old parish church, with possible Saxon origins, and a Norman font; a group of almshouses, and the Grade II* listed seventeenth century Church Farmhouse, as well as two other churches, and several listed early twentieth century buildings - including the Library.

Proposed high rise, crashingly inappropriate buildings in a low rise Conservation Area 

The impact of the Hub development clearly would be profoundly detrimental, adversely affecting the natural context of the Burroughs and the Church End conservation areas in so many ways - and leaving residents trapped in a virtual campus.

The plan to demolish all but the facade of Hendon Library, even thought it is a listed building, is in itself of course a hugely controversial proposal - and even the slightest alteration to a listed building, let alone one this radical, must be agreed with Historic England. 

How have the plans got this far, with no approach to them? And why?

In any other development, the plans  for such a sensitive area would have been formed after discussion with heritage advisers. Here we see our Tory councillors and their contractors trying to do their own thing, however, and in so doing, sideline Historic England, in their determination to see these ill begotten proposals through a farce of a consultation process, with only limited information given to residents, and crucial information withheld. Now we know that HE, which clearly is a hugely important 'stakeholder' has also been denied a role in this so called consultation. 

There is in addition, of course, the question of whether this plan is financially viable, grounds for objecting to the whole Hub proposal. 

We are being nonsulted, without adequate information, only a heavily redacted business plan, and vague sounds about possible sources of cash for the £90 million costs. Costs which almost certainly will be much more than that. 

Why do we need what we are told will be accommodation for 800 students, and why do we need them, several storeys high, in the centre of conservation areas? 

Why not build in nearby Colindale, where there is already accommodation for Middlesex Uni - and no built heritage at risk? 

Will they even be able to fill these halls, post Covid, and post Brexit? 

Or is this just a wheeze to get approval for planning approval in this area, which will slowly morph into yet another highly profitable luxury housing development?

There is an election in a few days time. 

If Tory activists come knocking on your door, between now and then, I would suggest that you ask them why it is that developers and Capita, and not elected representatives, are running this borough. 

And then vote for the Labour candidate and local library campaigner, Anne Clarke.