A developer has failed to win permission for a huge expansion of a housing scheme in a low-rise Barnet suburb.

Comer Homes Group’s plans to build more than 2,400 homes at North London Business Park in Brunswick Park – where it already has permission to build 1,350 homes – were strongly condemned by members of the council’s strategic planning committee during a meeting on Thursday.

Although the committee did not formally refuse the scheme, councillors instructed officers to draw up detailed reasons for refusal that will be voted on at the next meeting.

Local residents have been battling plans to build on the 16.5-hectare business park, which was previously occupied by Barnet Council, for several years. The council refused permission for Comer Homes’ 1,350-home scheme in 2017, but the decision was overturned by then-housing secretary Robert Jenrick in 2020.

After winning permission from the secretary of state, Comer unveiled plans to build a much larger scheme of 2,428 homes in blocks up to 13 storeys at the site, which is largely surrounded by two-storey suburban homes. More than 770 residents wrote to the council to oppose the scheme over a range of issues including impacts on suburban character, environment, and local infrastructure such as roads, schools and healthcare.

Despite the strength of opposition, town hall planning chiefs recommended the development for approval. In a report to the committee, council officers said it was “acceptable on balance” after taking into account local and national planning policies. Key benefits of the larger scheme, they said, included an increase in affordable housing from 10% to 21% and the provision of a new health centre.

Opposition to the development came from across the political spectrum during Thursday’s committee meeting, with local Labour councillors and Conservative MP for Chipping Barnet Theresa Villiers attacking the plans.

David Farbey, who lives in Weirdale Avenue and stood as a Green Party candidate in May’s local elections, spoke against the scheme on behalf of local residents. He told the committee the proposed increase in homes was like “creating an entire new town” in Brunswick Park “but with none of the amenities, or the services, or the infrastructure that a new town really needs”.

Warning local schools and health services were already under “severe strain”, David said the proposed health centre would merely replace existing facilities. He branded the plans for public transport – including one more bus per hour on the 382 route – “wholly inadequate”.

Similar concerns were raised by Labour’s Brunswick Park councillors Paul Lemon, Tony Vourou and Giulia Monasterio, who all spoke against the plans. Cllr Monasterio said councillors recognised there was a housing shortage but added “this does not mean developers can use this as an excuse to take advantage by introducing schemes that completely disregard the views of residents, councillors and the mayor [of London]”.

Theresa Villiers said buildings up to 13 storeys would be “wholly out-of-keeping with the character of an area largely consisting of one and two-storey homes”.

The Conservative MP said the scheme would contravene several “established local planning policies”, pointing out that the business park was not identified as an area suitable for tall buildings and claiming officers were wrong to “disregard” the borough’s emerging Local Plan, which allocates the site a capacity of 1,350 homes.

During the public consultation period, the council received 102 letters of support for the development. Reverend Matthew Harbage, vicar of St Paul’s Church in New Southgate, spoke in favour of the plans on behalf of a group of local churches.

Rev Harbage welcomed plans for the new health centre and space for faith groups within the proposed development. He said: “Given the existing planning permission for flats, we want to see this new planning application as an opportunity for the area. We want to increase health and wellbeing provision for new and existing residents. We believe healthcare is best understood holistically – body, mind and spirit.”

Speaking on behalf of the applicant, planning agent Charles Mills claimed an impact assessment had shown “no real difference would be perceived or experienced in height terms” compared to the existing plans. He said the new proposals were “more sustainable” and would provide open parkland, sports facilities, office space and the new health centre.

Stephen Finch, trustee of charity Community Wholecare Centres, said there was a “clear need” to relocate two GPs near the site and that the development would provide a “good opportunity to meet this need”. He added: “The Comer regeneration of the North London Business Park has the capacity to create a thriving community care hub, not just for the residents of the new scheme, but the area as a whole.”

Labour committee member Danny Rich asked if the developer was saying “you get your health centre if you give us permission to build two more floors on the tower blocks”. Stephen replied that the approved scheme had no health provision and poor communtiy provision, and if the committee turned the new application down “there won’t be an opportunity to provide either of the enhanced provisions”.

Members of the committee were highly critical of the developer’s plans. Conservative councillor Eva Greenspan said the proposed scheme would be out of character, an overdevelopment of the site and “absolutely too dense”. Labour’s Tim Roberts said he was concerned that approving taller buildings than the existing scheme could “open the gate to developers seeking to maximise their profits”.

Claire Farrier, another Labour committee member, said the proposed affordable housing level was “still below what we would expect” despite the increase from 10% to 21%, adding that she could see “no benefit at all” of increasing the height and bulk of the development.

Following the debate, committee members identified preliminary reasons for refusing the plans, focusing mainly on overdevelopment of the site and the potential impact on local character and views. They then voted unanimously against the planning officers’ recommendation to approve the development.

Recognising that the previous scheme had been approved by the secretary of state, who also told the council to pay costs to the developer, members agreed to allow officers time to prepare detailed reasons for refusal. The committee deferred the application to the next meeting of the committee, when members will vote on the reasons put forward by officers.