Pic credit @hanlemic
Barnet is probably best known for two things. The Battle of. And football.
Yes, Barnet FC.
We are talking High Barnet, or Chipping Barnet, rather than the Broken Borough, of course.
Or are we? No one really knows where the battle took place, although people keep trying to find it, and keep changing their minds about where it was, and – a Barnet theme this - where the bodies are buried.
And strictly speaking Barnet FC’s home is – was – in Underhill, the area at the bottom of Barnet Hill, where horses used to be switched before staggering up to the top, before Thomas Telford levelled out the gradient.
As for the battle: they used to think it was at Hadley Green, then Kitts End, now they think it was … Hadley Green. Well, I think they should be looking at Dead Man’s Bottom, for obvious reasons. And possibly around Hadley Green station, as rumour has it loads of bones were found there when building work was taking place sometime last century, but it was kept quiet as contractors didn’t want to be held up by pesky archaeologists.
Finding some real trace of the battle would be of huge benefit to Barnet: it’s the only battleground in Greater London and would attract tourism, a much needed boost for the high street and town centre.
Recently there were exciting plans for Barnet Museum (still only in place because the former Tory council couldn’t find the deeds necessary to flog, like Church Farmhouse Museum) to open a Wars of the Roses centre (it would be the first in England) – in the 16th century Tudor Hall building, near the church. But they don’t have enough money, and of course the now Labour council isn’t interested in securing the funding, or helping to find the funding from elsewhere.
This is a shame. And so is the reluctance of the same councillors to support what would also be of huge benefit to the area, with no cost to the borough: plans to bring Barnet FC back to its home in Underhill, with a new stadium and community facilities, situated on a large and boring field, the so called Barnet Playing Fields, which in theory is part of the Green Belt, but really surrounded by a residential area, and underused.
This is rather puzzling, to say the least, as in opposition Labour criticised the Tories for their campaign of attrition against the football club, and their fawning over Saracens, a non local rugby club owned by Nigel Wray, a resident of Totteridge. Barnet Tories gave the former Copthall stadium to Saracens for a peppercorn rent and allowed them to expand and develop it. Then, quite incredibly, they arranged a loan of public money for the private club – to the tune of £23 million. Perhaps one day the truth about how this symbiotic relationship began will be told. Who knows?
Barnet Playing Fields
Last summer I was invited, along with hundreds of over excited supporters, to the local Everyman cinema for a screening of a film made about the old Barnet club, as part of the new campaign to apply for planning permission. Was this, you are wondering, because of your internationally acclaimed role as a football pundit, Mrs Angry?
Well, maybe not.
Let me be honest. I hate football. Hate it. Yes, I secretly do understand the offside rule, but can’t understand why anyone would think it was a good idea in the first place … I detest all forms of sport, in fact. PE lessons at school for me were relentless torture, and I spent most of the time in the gym cupboard hiding from the teachers.
But watching the old Underhill film was a deeply poignant experience: seeing the extent of joy the club brought to so many - and has done since 1888. The immeasurable benefit in terms of social value and in encouraging engagement in an increasingly isolated and virtual world: the sense of belonging and comradeship.
The only time I had been to the old Underhill was under duress, forced to sit through a women’s football match, watching 22 somewhat younger PE teachers, with well-developed thighs, run around the pitch and shout rude things at each other. However. I recognise that other people do like football, and I like the fact that there is a local football team, which has so many supporters, and contributes to a sense of local identity. We need such ventures to help build community, as well as help the local economy. The effect on local pubs and the high street since the club was forced out of the borough has been severe: bringing it back would clearly give a huge boost to the area and – oh. And the construction itself would fit very well, wouldn’t it, with the new Labour mantra of ‘growth’. No?
No. Apparently not.
Our new Labour MP, Dan Tomlinson, was elected just over a year ago. He has been loyal to the government in all its controversial policy decisions – and u turns and has been appointed as a ‘Growth Champion’, pushing for more construction and the economic upturn that this would bring the UK. He has stated himself to be impatient with Nimbyism, and too many regulations standing in the way of developments and new building projects. Yet he appears not to want to lend any support to the new Underhill plans, which might seem somewhat contradictory.
Last week the new plans went to committee – along with hundreds of Bees fans in orange kits – with a recommendation from planning officers that the application should be rejected. And the application was rejected. The two Underhill Labour councillors took different sides: Zahra Beg opposed the plans on behalf of objecting residents, whereas Tim Roberts supported them, commenting:
“Nobody would expect Tottenham Hotspur to play at Arsenal stadium, Barnet Council should not be telling Barnet FC to play in Harrow.”
Supporters sat open mouthed as they heard officers and councillors list the reasons why they were not going to allow the plans. In desperation, officers cited the potential impact on the environment and our local wildlife. Well, an imaginary impact, rather than potential, in truth, unless you believe in the existence of a colony of otters waiting to move in to the tiny Dollis Brook, now in a real sulk because of plans to build on a nearby field. And then there were the bats, you know, those creatures of the night that planning officers usually don’t give two hoots about (have we mentioned owls?) too many of whom, in my opinion, live in this part of Barnet as it is, including my garden, where they are not welcome.
Oh, and of course in terms of use, where oh where will local dog walkers go to let their mutts run wild and shit on the grass? (Most of them walk up my road and stare in my windows, before letting them squat on the green outside, in fact). And finally: the kite flyers. Runners. Yes, forget Kabul: Barnet playing fields is the place for this. Well – no one has ever seen it take place, but you know – it could happen. But not if a football stadium is built there.
So why would councillors and officers feel so strongly about rejecting these plans, anyway?
Yes, strictly speaking it is on the very edge of the Green Belt – something I feel strongly should be protected from the non affordable housing development some want to see there, but for a leisure facility, in this particular spot, surrounded as we are by so many miles of other, more rural stretches of the Belt? It’s not a problem. If you can build an academy school, you can build a stadium.
But no. Not here. Ok. Where then?
At the recent Full Council meeting, council leader Barry Rawlings stated that other sites had been offered to the club instead of Barnet Playing Fields – three or four, it was said. And they awaited a response. Oh? What are these sites? But further details ... were not forthcoming.
Furious supporters vented their feelings on the councillor’s vote to reject the plans on social media and demanded to know what was being withheld from them. Some immediately submitted FOI requests for this information. And then a story - https://barnetpost.co.uk/2025/07/16/barnet-council-backtracks-on-leaders-claims-it-offered-barnet-football-club-alternative-sites-for-stadium/ appeared in the local Barnet Post which put everything in a new perspective. The council issued a statement contradicting the Leader, saying that the ‘impression’ given by the leader that there had been recent discussions with Barnet FC about alternative sites was ... ‘incorrect’
The article says:
“Responding to questions from Barnet Post: “Which sites in the borough have been offered to Barnet Football Club as alternative sites for a stadium?” and “Has the council now received a response from the club – if so, what was it?” a Barnet Council spokesperson said:
“We have never offered Barnet FC alternative sites, rather, following an initial discussion with the club, we committed to exploring potential locations that could be considered further by them.”
This, in my opinion, is an extraordinary position for the council leader to be in. I’ve never known a statement from the council correcting a remark like this, one made by a leader, so soon before such an important planning application. It arguably leaves the authority open to legal challenge, as the decision made would appear to have been on a false basis, that is to say that the special circumstances of the application were ignored.
Those who put in FOI requests regarding the alleged alternative sites have now been told Cllr Rawlings cannot respond yet as it the matter is now in the hands of the FOI team. This is nonsense, as the information can be released immediately if the authority wishes: certainly there is no need to string the response out to the maximum 21 day period.
Just a few of the Barnet fans who attended the committee meeting
The day after the Barnet decision, officers' recommendation was made to approve of the monstrous, totally inappropriate tower block development of Edgware town centre – a highly questionable scheme cooked up by the former Tory council, Capita, and some rather curious local developers, years ago. Odd that they are not listening to the concerns of voters in Edgware, who are hugely opposed to what really is a total overdevelopment, yet here in Barnet, they are choosing to court a few Nimbyist Tory voters in Underhill wards, who will never vote for them anyway, rather than give the many thousands of local Barnet supporters reason to vote Labour, maybe for the first time – votes that will be vital in next year’s local elections.
Labour will also not be retaining marginal Chipping Barnet constituency, at the next general election, if it fails to focus on the needs of local constituents. Too many have already been lost to the fallout over winter fuel allowance, welfare cuts, WASPI, the ‘Island of Strangers’ rhetoric, and so many other issues - and u turns. Banging on about ‘growth’ while ignoring the opportunities offered by a new stadium seems, by their own avowed agenda, to be totally illogical. Not to mention missing the opportunity to build pride in the community, and a sense of identity. But then a lack of vision, unfortunately, has become the hallmark of Labour politics, nationally and locally.
Still. Bad news for the Bees, good news for the otters, eh?
No comments:
Post a Comment