Key Points
- Barnet Council has refused a major planning application from Regal London for the comprehensive redevelopment of Great North Leisure Park in North Finchley.
- The scheme proposed up to 1,500 new homes across 20 buildings, with the tallest block rising to 25 storeys.
- The plans included a new leisure centre to replace existing facilities on the site.
- The application proposed 25% affordable housing, equating to 341 homes within the overall scheme.
- JTP acted as lead architect and masterplanner, with a multidisciplinary team including Avison Young (planning), BMD (landscape architecture), Montagu Evans (townscape and heritage) and Ashton Fire (fire strategy).
- Labour councillor for Woodhouse ward, Anne Hutton, addressed the strategic planning committee and described the scheme as “overbearing on the landscape” and “more suited to a town centre”.
- Representatives for the applicant – planning director for Regal London, Steve Harrington, and Avison Young’s Nick Alston – argued the scheme was optimised to meet London’s housing needs in line with planning policy.
- Planning officers had recommended approval of the application before the committee meeting.
- Despite that recommendation, eight members of the strategic planning committee voted to reject the scheme, with one abstention.
- Committee chair Councillor Nigel Young said the scheme was “out of character with the surrounding area” and that its “height, bulk, mass and density” would result in overdevelopment and harm to the site and its surroundings.
- The decision raises questions over how Barnet Council will balance housing targets, tall building policy and local character in future large-scale redevelopment proposals.
Barnet Council has rejected Regal London’s flagship proposal for up to 1,500 homes and a new leisure centre at Great North Leisure Park in North Finchley, ruling the 20‑building scheme – which includes a 25‑storey tower and 25% affordable housing – would be overbearing, out of character and amount to overdevelopment of the site.
What was Regal London proposing for Great North Leisure Park?
Regal London’s application sought outline permission for a large‑scale, mixed‑use redevelopment of the existing Great North Leisure Park site in North Finchley, within the London Borough of Barnet. The core of the scheme comprised up to 1,500 residential units distributed across 20 buildings, stepping up in height with the tallest proposed block reaching 25 storeys. The project also included plans for a new leisure centre, intended to replace and modernise leisure facilities currently provided on the site, as part of a broader regeneration vision.
According to the scheme details, 25% of the homes were designated as affordable housing, amounting to 341 units within the proposed development mix. The proposal was positioned as a response to London’s chronic housing shortage, aiming to densify an under‑utilised brownfield site while anchoring it with new community and leisure infrastructure. Design responsibility for the masterplan sat with JTP as lead architect and masterplanner, with specialist input from Avison Young on planning matters, BMD as landscape architects, Montagu Evans on townscape and heritage considerations, and Ashton Fire on fire safety strategy.
Who was behind the design and planning of the scheme?
The development team assembled by Regal London brought together several established consultancies to support the planning submission and design approach. JTP, a firm known for large‑scale masterplanning and residential‑led regeneration work, led on architecture and the overall layout, including building heights, massing and public realm arrangements. Their role covered the vision for transforming the existing leisure park into a dense residential quarter with integrated leisure uses, streets and open spaces.
On planning, Avison Young acted as lead adviser, shaping the planning case, engagement with Barnet Council officers and the interpretation of London Plan and local policies relevant to housing, tall buildings and design. The landscape strategy was developed by BMD, who were responsible for green spaces, amenity areas and the relationship between buildings and the public realm. Montagu Evans contributed townscape and heritage analysis, assessing visual impacts and character, while Ashton Fire advised on fire safety, including evacuation strategies and compliance with evolving fire regulations for high‑rise residential buildings. This multidisciplinary line‑up was central to Regal’s argument that the scheme had been comprehensively designed and “optimised” within policy parameters.
What concerns did councillor Anne Hutton raise about the plans?
During the strategic planning committee meeting convened to determine the application, Labour councillor for Woodhouse ward, Anne Hutton, delivered a deputation setting out local concerns about the scale and suitability of the scheme. In that contribution, Councillor Hutton characterised the plans as “overbearing on the landscape”, signalling fears that the mass and height of the proposed buildings would dominate the surrounding area and fundamentally alter its character. She further argued that the nature and intensity of the development made it “more suited to a town centre” location than to the existing suburban context of Great North Leisure Park.
Her comments reflected a wider unease over the impact of tall buildings and high‑density housing on established neighbourhoods in Barnet, where questions around infrastructure capacity, overshadowing and visual impact are frequently raised in relation to major schemes. By highlighting both overbearing visual presence and perceived mis‑match with the local setting, Hutton framed the objection not only as a matter of personal preference but as a challenge to the planning principle of placing such dense development in this particular location.
How did Regal London and its planning advisers defend the scheme?
At the same hearing, Regal London’s planning director, Steve Harrington, and Avison Young representative, Nick Alston, appeared before the committee to make the case for the development on behalf of the applicant. They described the proposal as being “optimised to meet London’s housing needs”, stressing that the density, layout and housing numbers were derived from and supported by planning policies at both London and borough level. Their argument centred on the pressing need for new homes, particularly in well‑connected parts of the capital, and on the suitability of the leisure park site for comprehensive redevelopment.
Harrington and Alston emphasised that the application delivered a significant quantum of housing, including 25% affordable provision equating to 341 homes, within a carefully masterplanned environment serviced by new leisure and community facilities. They referred to the professional input provided by JTP, BMD, Montagu Evans and Ashton Fire as evidence that issues such as design quality, landscape, townscape impact and fire safety had been robustly addressed. The overarching case was that the scheme represented an efficient and policy‑compliant use of the site, contributing meaningfully to housing targets while regenerating an ageing leisure complex.
Why did Barnet’s strategic planning committee reject the application?
Despite the support of planning officers, who had recommended that the application be approved subject to conditions and legal agreement, Barnet Council’s strategic planning committee voted to refuse permission. After hearing deputations and representations, eight members of the committee cast their votes against the scheme, with one member abstaining. That outcome signalled a clear divergence between the professional officer assessment and the elected members’ judgement on the acceptability of the proposal.
Committee chair Councillor Nigel Young articulated the committee’s reasoning in his closing remarks, describing the scheme as “out of character with the surrounding area”. He stated that the “height, bulk, mass and density” of the development would result in overdevelopment of the site and create harm both to the proposed environment within the scheme and to the surrounding area. Those phrases underline the committee’s concern that the cumulative scale of 20 buildings, including a 25‑storey tower, exceeded what could reasonably be accommodated without undermining local character and amenity. The refusal therefore rested primarily on design, scale and townscape grounds rather than on the principle of housing delivery.
How significant was the affordable housing and leisure offer?
A central feature of Regal London’s planning case was the inclusion of 25% affordable housing within the overall 1,500‑home mix, equal to 341 affordable units. In policy terms, this was presented as a substantial contribution towards Barnet’s and London’s wider objectives for delivering homes at below market cost, particularly in an area where housing affordability is a persistent issue. The scheme aimed to balance viability constraints, high construction costs associated with tall buildings and policy expectations on affordable provision.
The proposal also promised a new leisure centre to replace the existing facilities at Great North Leisure Park, bundling housing delivery with the renewal of community and recreational infrastructure. This dual offer – affordable housing and upgraded leisure provision – was deployed as a key public benefit intended to weigh in favour of granting permission. However, the committee’s decision indicates that, in members’ view, these benefits did not sufficiently offset the perceived harms arising from the scheme’s scale and form, particularly in relation to character and overdevelopment.
What were the main design and townscape objections?
Barnet councillors’ objections focused heavily on the visual and physical impact of the proposed 20‑building cluster, which they regarded as disproportionate in height and mass compared to the surrounding built environment. References to the scheme being “overbearing on the landscape” and “out of character with the surrounding area” underscore worries that the new towers and blocks would dominate views, overshadow neighbouring properties and erode the existing suburban and low‑ to mid‑rise character of this part of North Finchley. These themes are common in debates around tall buildings in outer London boroughs.
The specific criticism from committee chair Nigel Young about the “height, bulk, mass and density” encapsulates a multi‑faceted concern: not just how tall the buildings are, but how closely they are grouped, how much floor space they introduce and how this cumulatively reads in townscape terms. In planning parlance, “overdevelopment” typically denotes a situation where the intensity of proposed use, relative to the site and its context, is judged to be excessive, potentially leading to issues such as inadequate amenity space, poor daylight and sunlight, or an oppressive urban form. The committee’s refusal grounds align with that notion, placing local character and perceived liveability at the centre of the decision.
What does this decision mean for housing delivery and future plans?
The rejection of a large‑scale, housing‑led regeneration scheme on an existing leisure park site raises broader questions about how Barnet Council will meet its housing requirements while resisting tall or high‑density schemes it considers out of keeping with local character. With 1,500 homes – including 341 affordable units – now stalled, there is a potential shortfall in planned supply that will need to be addressed through alternative sites, revised schemes or appeals. The tension between local political judgements and strategic housing targets is likely to remain a live issue in future applications.
For Regal London, the decision presents a strategic choice: to revise the proposals, reduce heights and density and resubmit, or to pursue an appeal, arguing that officers’ recommendation and policy support should prevail over the committee’s concerns. Any revised scheme would have to grapple directly with the criticisms around height, massing and character, potentially sacrificing unit numbers and some affordable provision to secure a more acceptable townscape profile. In the meantime, the Great North Leisure Park site remains in its current form, with the council and developer at an impasse over how far regeneration can go without, in members’ eyes, tipping into overdevelopment.
