BACK TO BARNET UPDATE

I am writing in respect of the planning application for a new stadium at South Underhill for Barnet FC (LPA ref: 24/5650/OUT), following the planning committee resolution on Monday, 14^th July.

You will be aware of the recent comments made by Councillor Rawlings, the Council Leader, at the Full Council meeting on 8^th July, regarding the application.

Councillor Rawlings said that:

“I can’t decide where Barnet Football Club are going to put in a planning application. All that I will say is that three or four sites have been mentioned to them and we’re waiting for a response.” 

Without doubt, this gave the impression that viable alternative sites exist, but the Club had refused to engage with the Council on the matter.

These comments were widely publicised over the weekend before the committee. There can be no doubt that committee members thought that other potential sites existed for consideration.

On Wednesday 16th July,  the Council clarified that:

“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.”

In short, Cllr Rawlings’ comments were incorrect and misled committee members, public speakers, and the local community.

It was clear from discussions on the night of the committee that the comments from Cllr Rawlings had a material effect on the consideration of the application by Councillors.

 As was pointed out on the night by Councillor Gordon, the comments were interpreted as meaning that the Council had identified other potential sites and the potential for alternative sites needed to be resolved prior to making a decision.

All of the committee members stated on the night that they supported the principle of the Club returning to Barnet, but the majority considered that other, more appropriate locations existed. The influence that Cllr Rawlings’ misleading comments had on the decision is clear.

The legal representative on night stated that the Club’s Alternative Site Assessment (ASA) concluded that there are no alternative sites, but Councillor Rawling’s comments crucially undermined this conclusion and put doubt in committee members’ minds as to whether there was a preferred Council option.

On this basis, we request that the application is taken back to Committee for determination, with committee members made aware that the Council have not identified an alternative site. As Councillor Gordon succinctly put it on the night, the lack of an alternative site is in itself a Very Special Circumstance that must be given weight in the decision-making process. 

Councillors must make fair and informed decisions based on accurate and complete information. This did not happen on Monday night. The decision was procedurally flawed.

To re- consider that application would be in the interests of local government openness and transparency, and natural justice. The application is high profile and if the Council does not redress the flawed decision, it will compromise the integrity of the process and public confidence in it.

In the interim before the application is re-considered, we would be happy to work with Officers to clarify: the site’s status as grey belt; the lack of alternative sites; and to resolve other reasons for refusal.  The application could then be reconsidered at committee in the correct context.

I trust that this request will be acted upon positively and I look forward to hearing from you.