Barnet Football Club

BARNET FOOTBALL CLUB

Barnet Football Club – Underhill Update

Barnet Football Club’s application for a new stadium back at Underhill is set to be considered at Strategic Planning Committee on Monday 14th July 2025. Disappointingly, it is recommended for refusal.

 

The amazing Bring Barnet Back campaigners are looking for a big show of support and are asking people to bring friends and families along with them.

 

They will be meeting at 6pm outside the Town Hall in Hendon and are encouraging supporters to wear Barnet related clothes and colours, along with scarfs, banners and flags.

 

It will be a carnival atmosphere to celebrate our Club so if you can, please come along and join fellow campaigners and supporters.

 

 

 

Below our planning consultants, WSP, explain why the Officer’s report is incorrect and why Councillors can, and should, support the application on Monday night.

 

 

WSP’s Response

 

LPA Reference 24/5650/OUT – South Underhill Community Stadium

 

Although the Committee Report is 120 pages, the Council’s fundamental concerns are straightforward and relate to the principle of allowing a new stadium to be built in the Green Belt and on existing playing fields.

 

There are five other reasons for refusal that relate to detailed and technical matters, but it is agreed with Officers that these outstanding issues can be addressed should the principle of development be accepted by the Councillors on the night.

 

We are confident that in recommending refusal, Officers have misinterpreted planning policy on the two fundamental matters, we out the reasons below.

 

Development in the Green Belt / Grey Belt

 

Historically, the protection of the Green Belt is probably the best understood principle of national planning policy. It means that ‘inappropriate’ development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in ‘very special circumstances’ (VSC).

 

However, when the revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published in December 2024 key changes were made. The most far-reaching was the concept that some Green Belt land is ‘grey belt’ where development is acceptable.

 

In our view, the site represents grey belt land when assessed against the latest government guidance. Any objective assessment would conclude this. The Council have not considered the site properly in this context and have reached flawed conclusions.

 

The five key purposes of the Green Belt are:

 

to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;
to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;
to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and
to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

To be grey belt land, the first test is whether the site strongly contributes to purposes a), b) and d) set out above.

 

Officers accept that Underhill does not contribute strongly to purposes a) and b) because the 2018 Study confirms this.

 

Officers consider that it does perform strongly in respect of purpose d), preserving the setting of historic towns, because they assert in the Report that Barnet Playing Fields contributes to the setting of High Barnet and Monken Hadley (para 7.46) and later in the report that it maintains the open setting between High Barnet and New Barnet (para 7.93).

 

These considerations are not relevant. The 2018 Study confirms that there are no historic towns in Barnet’s Green Belt and the site does not form part of the setting of Chipping Barnet / High Barnet and has no visual, physical, or experiential connection to its historic aspects.

 

For these reasons, the site makes no contribution to Purpose (d).

 

The next grey belt test is whether the site constitutes NPPF ‘Footnote 7’ land. Officers accept that the site is not formally designated Local Green Space and, therefore, does not meet the statutory definition of Footnote 7 land. This cannot prevent the site’s grey belt classification.

 

The Council have, therefore, erroneously addressed the site as Green Belt and so Very Special Circumstances (VSC) apply. Disappointingly, they have placed almost no weight on the benefits of returning the Club to Barnet and securing its long-term future as a VSC.

 

This is despite the fact that in 2002, the Council agreed that securing the Club’s long-term future was a VSC when they resolved to approve the development of a 9,000-seat stadium at South Underhill. This test has not changed in the interim.

In our view, the Very Special Circumstances are compelling. In summary, they comprise the following:

 

Returning the Club to its historic home, a unique and very special circumstance in itself.
There are no alternative sites in the Borough and the return of the Club to Barnet itself, its traditional home which is synonymous with the Club and holds cultural identity.
Delivery of the strategic sports hub, aligning with Local Plan policy, saving Council cost.
Providing a new medical diagnostics centre for both private and NHS patients.
Creating a new foundation in Barnet, with a wide range of community initiatives.
Developing just 22% of Barnet Playing Fields and 0.1% of the Borough’s Green Belt.
Delivering 14.3% biodiversity improvement, a 77% increase in hedgerow and a net gain of 128 trees on the site.
Injecting £2.8million annual spend into the high street and creating new jobs.
Securing a sustainable future for the Club.

Officers have concluded that the socio-economic benefits, cultural significance and community value of the new stadium do not sufficiently outweigh the harm to the Green Belt. We simply do not agree with this, but it is a planning judgement.

 

However, since the site is grey belt, this is the wrong test and on grey belt land, development providing such benefits should be supported. This leads to the Council’s second fundamental concern.

 

Loss of Public Open Space and Playing Fields

 

Officers seem to take the view that open space cannot be developed upon because of its intrinsic value. This is incorrect.

 

Policy at every level accepts that open space can be developed if the development is for alternative sports and recreational provision, the benefits of which clearly outweigh the loss of the current use. The stadium is alternative sports and recreational provision. Therefore, it follows that the test is whether the benefits clearly outweigh the loss of under-used grass at Barnet Playing Fields.

 

In coming to this judgement, it is helpful to put the loss of open space in context. Only 22% of Barnet playing fields will be built upon. Therefore, 78% of the playing fields will remain as open space. There is clearly no under provision of open space in this location and the removal of just 3.77% of local open space within the catchment area will not result in a local deficiency of open space. The Council accept this.

 

Indeed, the development will have positive aspects for the open space:

 

Increased use and enjoyment of the site;
129 trees will be planted;
There will be a significant biodiversity net gain in habitats (14.3%);
There will be a significant increase in hedgerows (77%); and
A wider landscape corridor will be created, with a feature drainage pond.

These are significant open space benefits.

 

In any case, the Council want to build on the site for a destination sports hub. The report underplays the scale of this building – it will be 14,000sqft. It is a major development.

 

A more sustainable and affordable solution would be to include the Destination Sports Hub facilities in the North Stand of the stadium. Given the pressure on the public purse, is it realistic or even appropriate to spend public money on a facility that can be delivered with the stadium?

 

The London Plan (Policy G4) supports proposals that: enhance open spaces to provide a wider range of benefits for Londoners. This scheme undoubtedly provides a wider range of benefits, in line with Local Plan policy (GSS13). The London Plan (5.5.5) also states that: Specialist sporting venues and stadiums also have a role to play in providing facilities and enabling wider access to sport, as well as having an important cultural value.

 

In any rational assessment, it is difficult to reconcile the Officers’ judgement that the benefits the stadium will deliver do not clearly outweigh the loss. The ‘loss’ constitutes under-used open space with negligible biodiversity value, which will remain 78% open and is already located in an area of open space surplus.

 

It is our view that Officers have failed to consider these key local and regional objectives. The Local Plan supports the sports hub delivery, and the London Plan supports enhancement of open space in the manner proposed, giving weight to the benefits of specialist sporting venues.

 

In summary, the benefits of the scheme are clear, and it is established that the loss of open space is minimal. The Council’s assessment of the scheme against national policy (NPPF, para 104 (c)) is clearly misguided and the principle of developing this site is acceptable because the benefits clearly outweigh the loss on the site.

 

Other Matters

The Officers’ Report also identifies four ‘makeweight’ reasons for refusal. Two relate to access and traffic impact. These can be conditioned. Another relates to a need for bat and otter surveys. These have been carried out and do not raise any concerns. A further reason relates to a desk based archaeological assessment. Again, this could be conditioned but has been carried out anyway and does not raise any concerns. The final reason requires the signing of a s106 agreement which will only be required if the Council resolves to support the application.

CLUB NEWS