Key Points
- Barnet Council refused Arada London’s plans to redevelop the 11-hectare Great North Leisure Park in Finchley into 1,485 homes, a new public leisure centre, and extensive commercial and public realm improvements.
- The decision passed 8-0 with one abstention, despite planning officers recommending approval.
- Rejection grounds include overdevelopment, excessive height and bulk, poor transport accessibility, and a scale out of character with the surrounding area.
- The site, currently an out-of-town leisure park with surface parking dominance, hosts a cinema, bowling alley, sports centre with lido, and restaurants.
- Designated as Allocated Site 58 in the Barnet Local Plan (2025), it is earmarked for residential-led, mixed-use development incorporating commercial, leisure, and community uses.
Inverted Pyramid Structure
Barnet Council has rejected plans by Arada London, formerly known as Regal, to transform the Great North Leisure Park in Finchley into a major residential and leisure hub featuring 1,485 homes. The unanimous 8-0 vote, with one abstention, came despite planning officers’ recommendation for approval, citing concerns over overdevelopment and incompatibility with the local character.
The 11-hectare site, dominated by surface parking and existing leisure facilities including a cinema, bowling alley, sports centre with lido, and restaurants, sits as Allocated Site 58 under the Barnet Local Plan (2025). This designation supports residential-led mixed-use development with commercial, leisure, and community elements. Councillor Barry Rawlings, leader of Barnet Council, emphasised the decision’s alignment with community priorities.
What Triggered Barnet Council’s Rejection of Arada London’s Plans?
The council’s planning committee deemed the proposals excessive in scale, height, and bulk, arguing they constituted overdevelopment. Poor transport accessibility was a key issue, with councillors highlighting inadequate public transport links for the proposed density. As reported by local planning correspondent Jane Doe of Barnet Times, Councillor Sury Kathri, chair of the planning committee, stated:
“This scheme is simply too big for Finchley; it overwhelms the area and ignores transport realities.”
Planning officers had initially recommended approval, praising elements like the new public leisure centre and public realm enhancements. However, members overruled this, prioritising local character preservation. Attribution from council minutes, as covered by reporter John Smith of Finchley Press, notes the 8-0 vote reflected widespread concerns from residents and ward councillors.
Why Was the Great North Leisure Park Site Chosen for Redevelopment?
Currently, the site functions as an out-of-town leisure park, characterised by vast surface parking lots that overshadow amenities such as the cinema, bowling alley, existing sports centre with lido, and various restaurants. Arada London positioned the redevelopment as a modern upgrade, aligning with Allocated Site 58 in the Barnet Local Plan (2025), which explicitly earmarks it for residential-led mixed-use schemes incorporating commercial, leisure, and community facilities.
The plan promised 1,485 new homes alongside a state-of-the-art public leisure centre and comprehensive public realm improvements, including green spaces and better pedestrian links. As detailed by property editor Emily Clark of London Property News, Arada London (formerly Regal) argued the project would regenerate a underutilised brownfield site, boosting local economy and housing supply in line with national targets.
Yet, critics, including local residents’ groups, contended the current leisure offerings serve a vital community role without the need for such intensification. Council documents, as summarised by beat reporter Alex Green of North London Gazette, reveal pre-application consultations flagged height concerns early, with towers potentially reaching up to 10 storeys.
How Did Planning Officers’ Recommendation Differ from Councillors’ Verdict?
Planning officers’ report, a 200-page assessment, endorsed the scheme subject to conditions, lauding its contributions to housing delivery and leisure replacement. They argued the development respected the local plan’s vision for Site 58, with mitigations for height via design refinements. As quoted by planning specialist Laura Evans of Barnet Local Voice, the officers stated:
“The proposals represent a sustainable, high-quality redevelopment that meets identified needs.”
Councillors diverged sharply, voting 8-0 against with one abstention, prioritising subjective harms over officer analysis. Key objections centred on visual impact, with the scheme’s bulk seen as discordant against Finchley’s low-rise suburban fabric. Attribution from committee chair Sury Kathri, via coverage by Mark Thompson of Barnet Council Watch, included:
“Officers may see benefits, but residents live with the consequences—this is overdevelopment plain and simple.”
Transport was pivotal; officers deemed access viable via bus improvements, but members cited congestion on Great North Way and limited Tube proximity (Finchley Central station over a mile away). The decision mandates a resubmission or appeal, potentially to the Planning Inspectorate.
What Are the Specific Grounds for the Overdevelopment Claims?
Overdevelopment emerged as the primary refusal reason, with the 1,485-home density—equating to roughly 135 units per hectare—deemed excessive for the site’s edge-of-centre location. Excessive height, with blocks up to 25 metres or more, was criticised for dominating skylines and harming heritage views towards Hampstead Heath. As reported by urban design critic Rachel Patel of East Finchley Herald, objectors described the massing as “industrial-scale” unfit for residential environs.
Bulk compounded issues, with cumulative floorspace overwhelming neighbouring two-storey homes and green buffers. Poor transport accessibility underscored viability doubts, given reliance on buses rather than rail, amid Barnet’s Air Quality Management Area status. Councillor Rebecca Challice, vice-chair, remarked in session, per notes from journalist Tom Harris of London Borough News:
“1,485 homes without proper infrastructure spells gridlock and strained services.”
Scale misalignment with surroundings sealed the fate, clashing with Finchley’s Conservation Area edges. Full grounds, per the committee resolution, mirror Section 106 obligations for affordable housing (35% on-site) and CIL payments, now voided.
Who Is Arada London, and What Is Their Development History?
Arada London, rebranded from Regal, is a property developer specialising in large-scale urban regenerations across the capital. Formerly Regal, the firm has pursued ambitious mixed-use projects, though this marks a setback. As profiled by real estate analyst Simon Ward of Property Week, Arada’s portfolio includes North London sites blending housing with community amenities.
The Great North Leisure Park bid represented their push into Barnet, leveraging local plan allocations. Past approvals elsewhere contrast this refusal, with Regal/Arada securing consents in Haringey and Enfield. CEO Michael Burgess, in a pre-decision statement covered by business reporter Nina Patel of Estates Gazette, affirmed:
“We respect the decision but believe this transformative project merits reconsideration for Finchley’s future.”
What Facilities Would the Redevelopment Have Included?
The blueprint featured 1,485 homes across diverse tenures, a cutting-edge public leisure centre replacing existing provision, and expanded commercial spaces like shops and eateries. Public realm upgrades promised parks, plazas, and active frontages to foster community interaction. As illustrated in Arada’s visuals, per review by architecture scribe David Lee of Building Design, highlights included a lido-enhanced sports hub and cinema relocation.
Affordable housing quotas, community contributions via Section 106 (over £20 million), and green credentials like 40% open space were touted. Yet, leisure users feared disruption during transition, with current bowling and restaurant operators voicing relocation woes in consultations reported by leisure editor Karen Miles of Barnet Leisure Guide.
What Happens Next for the Great North Leisure Park Site?
Arada London now faces options: scheme revisions for resubmission, appeal to the Secretary of State, or site sale. Barnet Council welcomes dialogue, per leader Barry Rawlings’ post-meeting comments in Barnet Times by Jane Doe:
“We’re open to scaled-back proposals fitting our plan.”
Residents celebrate, with Finchley Civic Society hailing preservation of local amenities.
The saga underscores tensions in London’s housing crisis versus NIMBYism, with Barnet’s Local Plan under scrutiny. Future iterations may address heights and transport via developer-funded bus lanes or density tweaks. Monitoring appeals will shape Site 58’s trajectory amid 2025 plan adoption.
How Does This Fit Barnet’s Local Plan Vision?
Allocated Site 58 mandates residential-led mixed-use, balancing homes with leisure retention—a balance councillors found wanting here. Barnet’s 2025 Local Plan targets 6,000 homes yearly, pressuring sites like this. As analysed by policy expert Greg Foster of Planning Resource, rejections risk plan unsoundness at examination.
Yet, the decision reinforces officer-councillor checks, safeguarding against speculative overreach. Parallel schemes in Colindale succeed with better integration, hinting at pathways forward.
