Key Points:
- Licence Renewal Approved: Barnet Council has decided not to remove a disputed parklet outside the Pita Street restaurant at 134 Brent Street, Hendon. The establishment will be allowed to renew its operational licence upon expiration at the end of January next year.
- Petition and Opposition: Conservative ward councillor Alex Prager presented a petition boasting over 500 signatures—around 95% from local residents—demanding the removal of the structure.
- Parking Shortage Concerns: Opposition members highlighted a “huge increase in demand” for parking spaces in the vicinity, exacerbated by nearby residential developments, claiming the three-car-length space is usually empty.
- Safety and ASB Claims: Allegations were made in the petition that the parklet acts as a “magnet for antisocial behaviour,” with reports of residents feeling intimidated at night.
- Council Refusal and Contractual Duties: Cabinet members rejected the claims, noting no official records of antisocial behaviour at the site. Council Leader Barry Rawlings stated that the council must honour its legal contract with a compliant business.
- Cost and Policy Review: A council report noted that removing the parklet would cost between £2,000 and £5,000. An upcoming borough-wide parklet policy review could alter future renewal terms.
Hendon (North London News) September 17, 2026 – Barnet Council has officially declined to dismantle a controversial street parklet situated in Hendon, rejecting calls from opposition politicians and hundreds of petitioners who branded its removal a “no-brainer”. As reported by Joe Ives, Local Democracy Reporter for the Barnet Post, the decision permits the proprietors of the Pita Street restaurant, located at 134 Brent Street, to proceed with renewing their site licence when the existing agreement expires at the end of January next year.
Why Has the Hendon Parklet Decision Triggered Debate Among Local Representatives?
The contentious outcome followed a formal cabinet member meeting on Tuesday 15th September, where Conservative ward councillor Alex Prager spearheaded a campaign against the seating structure. According to reporting by Joe Ives of the Barnet Post, Cllr Prager submitted a petition signed by more than 500 residents—approximately 95% of whom reside in the immediate area—asserting that the public does not support the installation.
During the meeting, Cllr Prager argued that the space, which occupies approximately three car parking bays, remains underutilised. As reported by Joe Ives of the Barnet Post, Cllr Prager stated that “residents don’t want” the parklet and pointed out that nearby residential developments have generated a “huge increase in demand” for parking spaces. He further noted that the structure is “always empty” and disclosed that he had personally received “hundreds of emails” from local constituents expressing frustration.
Detailing the history of the petition, Cllr Prager mentioned that it originated roughly a year ago with 30 to 40 signatures before gaining traction following social media promotion. Although he acknowledged not having spoken directly with the proprietor of Pita Street, he confirmed discussions with adjacent shop owners who expressed deep concern over lost trade due to reduced parking capacity.
How Did Barnet Council Respond to Allegations of Antisocial Behaviour and Parking Deficits?
Beyond the loss of vehicle spaces, the petition raised concerns regarding public safety, labelling the seating installation a “magnet for antisocial behaviour”. As documented by Joe Ives of the Barnet Post, Cllr Prager cited feedback from a local resident regarding “women feeling intimidated” when walking past the establishment at night due to individuals “hanging around” the structure.
In response, Sara Conway, Barnet Council’s cabinet member for community safety, community cohesion, and ending violence against women and girls, clarified that authority records show no registered incidents of antisocial behaviour connected to the site. As reported by Joe Ives of the Barnet Post, Cllr Conway emphasised that “structures like this” had been removed elsewhere in the borough when legitimate antisocial behaviour was logged, adding:
“I would urge residents to report issues that they’re concerned about to the police, to the council, as appropriate.”
From an environmental and economic perspective, Alan Schneiderman, cabinet member for environment and climate change, defended the local authority’s stance, noting that Barnet has adopted a “very pragmatic approach” toward parklets borough-wide. As reported by Joe Ives of the Barnet Post, Cllr Schneiderman stated:
“I don’t think that it’s in the interests of the business to pay for something if it is not being used.”
Challenging this perspective, Cllr Prager argued:
“We have over 550 local residents saying they don’t want it here – you have one business saying they do want it here, and is willing to pay for that.”
He maintained that removing the installation was a “no-brainer” and warned that maintaining it amounted to “essentially ignoring” the surrounding community and business owners.
However, local authority leader Barry Rawlings rejected the demand to terminate the agreement. As reported by Joe Ives of the Barnet Post, Cllr Rawlings stated that the council and the restaurant had entered into a formal legal agreement “and we have to abide by that.” The Labour leader added:
“I don’t think that we should punish a business that has obeyed the rules and behaved properly.”
Additionally, an official council report indicated that removing the parklet structure would incur a financial cost to the authority ranging between £2,000 and £5,000. Cllr Schneiderman further explained that the council plans to conduct an upcoming review of its overarching parklet policy, at which point the owners of Pita Street “may or may not choose to renew based on the terms that are offered.”
Background of the Hendon Parklet Development
Parklets originally emerged across urban centres as part of broader post-pandemic active travel and high-street recovery initiatives aimed at supporting hospitality businesses, enhancing pedestrian infrastructure, and encouraging outdoor dining. In the London Borough of Barnet, parklet schemes were introduced under specific licensing frameworks that allow commercial venues to temporarily occupy kerbside parking spaces in exchange for a fee.
In Hendon, particularly along commercial stretches such as Brent Street, kerbside space is subject to competing demands between retail footfall, high-density residential developments, and local motorists requiring parking access. While the policy was designed to stimulate economic growth and enhance public space, individual installations across London boroughs have frequently triggered debate surrounding private commercial use of public highway space versus residential parking provisions.
Prediction: How This Development May Affect Local Stakeholders
The decision by Barnet Council to permit the renewal of the Pita Street parklet license carries multiple potential impacts for key groups in the Hendon community:
- For Local Residents and Motorists: Drivers searching for parking along Brent Street are likely to experience ongoing parking friction, particularly given recent residential expansions in the area. If parking availability remains tight, community pressure on local ward councillors may increase leading up to the council’s formal parklet policy review.
- For High-Street Hospitality and Local Businesses: The ruling provides regulatory certainty for the owners of Pita Street, allowing them to maintain outdoor seating capacity through the winter and early spring. Conversely, neighboring retail operators who rely on high customer turnaround from short-stay parking bays may continue to monitor local footfall patterns to evaluate whether kerbside allocation impacts their trade.
- For Future Borough Policy and Municipal Governance: Barnet Council’s upcoming review of its parklet policy will set a key precedent for how kerbside space is managed across the borough. Depending on updated terms, license fee adjustments, or revised community consultation requirements, future parklet applications may face stricter criteria, balancing small business support directly against local resident preferences.
