High Barnet Station redevelopment S106 agreement deferred amid opposition and constitutional concerns
Barnet Council's Planning Committee has deferred a decision on a Section 106 agreement for the High Barnet Station redevelopment. The move follows opposition from local councillors who expressed disappointment that the Mayor of London had overturned the council's initial refusal of the scheme.
Councillor Richard Barnes, Chair of the Planning Committee, acknowledged an urgent item regarding the delegated powers report on the authorisation to enter into a Section 106 agreement for the High Barnet Station redevelopment. An officer explained that the Mayor of London had granted approval for the scheme after the council's Strategic Planning Committee had refused it. The Section 106 agreement was deemed necessary to secure obligations for the approved scheme, representing the interests of Barnet residents and being enforceable by the council.
The council's Strategic Planning Committee had initially refused the High Barnet Station application due to concerns about the excessive height of buildings A, B, and E. These were deemed incompatible with the site and would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding townscape. The proposal also conflicted with Policy CDH04 and Site Allocation 37 of the Local Plan 2025, and Policy D9 of the London Plan, among other relevant policies.
Councillor Wright, speaking on behalf of the Barnet Conservatives, voiced his disappointment that the committee's refusal was overturned and stated that they would not support the execution of the Section 106 agreement, maintaining their opposition to the Mayor's intervention.
Councillor Wright also raised a constitutional issue, suggesting that in the future, when the Mayor calls in and overturns a decision of the committee or the Council, and Barnet is then required to enter into a Section 106 Agreement, the authority to execute that agreement should return to elected members, either at the Planning Committee or full Council. He believes that decisions creating significant legal and financial obligations for the authority should be made transparently with proper member oversight.
The committee noted these comments and the steps taken by officers. The item was ultimately deferred to allow for further consideration of mitigation conditions, including an alternative on parking, and to address the constitutional concerns raised. The full details of the meeting can be found in the Public reports pack.