Barnet Elizabethans needs to replace its existing clubhouse which is deemed no longer fit for purpose, reports Simon Allin, Local Democracy Reporter

The plans for a new clubhouse (credit HLM Architects) — The plans for the new clubhouse (credit HLM Architects)

The future plans of a historic Barnet rugby club still hang in the balance despite more than three-and-a-half hours of debate by councillors.

Barnet Council’s strategic planning committee is “minded to approve” a proposal by Barnet Elizabethans Rugby Football Club to demolish its existing clubhouse on a Green Belt site in Byng Road, High Barnet, and build a larger, modern facility.

But no final decision has yet been made, even after two seperate meetings.

When the proposal was previously considered by a planning committee on 11th July, the chair referred it to the council’s strategic planning committee after an hour-and-a-half’s debate. But during the strategic planning meeting on Wednesday (19th), councillors still did not reach a decision and voted to defer the plans to a future meeting, following a further two hours of debate.

The club wants to replace its existing one-storey clubhouse, which is around 65 years old, with a two-storey building providing more changing rooms, new floodlit pitches, a bigger car park and facilities for disabled people.

It says the current clubhouse does not meet contemporary standards for sports, player welfare or community use, and has no specific changing and showering facilities for women.

Council planning chiefs recommended the scheme for refusal. On Wednesday, however, it was revealed they had dropped one of the previous reasons for refusal – the claim that the development would harm roosting bats. The other reasons – that it would harm the openness of the Green Belt and nearby trees – were maintained.

Additional papers presented to the committee claimed construction of new foundations could decrease the rooting area of one tree by 50%, which would have a “catastrophic impact” on its “health and stability”. Officers said the location of the new clubhouse building “needs further consideration”.

The council received 107 objections to the proposed redevelopment and 355 letters in support. One resident who spoke against the plans said the site was “rich in biodiversity” and suggested approving the scheme would encourage other developers to “nibble away” at the Green Belt.

Another resident, Chris Strat, spoke in favour, saying the club could not “keep patching up an old, wooden-framed clubhouse that is hugely expensive to maintain”. He said the changes were needed so that the facilities meet Rugby Football Union (RFU) standards.

Four councillors – Labour’s Paul Edwards and Emma Whysall, and Conservatives David Longstaff and Laithe Jajeh – also spoke in support of the application.

Under questioning from councillors, planning agent Jon Bradburn told the committee that the club had tried to mitigate the impact on the Green Belt site and claimed the new building would be further away from the at-risk tree.

He said the club had considered siting the new building towards the centre of the fields to avoid the trees entirely, but this option was ruled out because it would have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt.

Paul added that the scheme was 28%-30% smaller than the original plans, and the club had removed a multi-use games area from the application.

He said: “We have done as much as we can to remove elements from the site that could cause a particular issue, and really squeezed the scheme as much as possible while still trying to maintain those RFU standards on the amount of accommodation required.”

Committee members acknowledged the decision would come down to a “balancing act” between the impact on the Green Belt and the provision of new sporting facilities that would benefit the community.

After several councillors indicated they would support the scheme, the committee’s legal adviser suggested deferring the application to a future meeting and indicating that members were “minded to approve” it. He said the plan could not be approved during the current meeting because of “a change in the [council’s] constitution”.

When it was put to the vote, all four Conservative committee members voted in favour of the deferral, along with Labour’s Philip Cohen. The remaining Labour committee members voted against.

The legal adviser said the officers’ recommendation to refuse would remain the same, but committee chair Nigel Young explained that the report would come back with a series of conditions that must be added if the committee does finally vote to approve it.

No news is bad news

Independent news outlets like ours – reporting for the community without rich backers – are under threat of closure, turning British towns into news deserts.

The audiences they serve know less, understand less, and can do less.

If our coverage has helped you understand our community a little bit better, please consider supporting us with a monthly, yearly or one-off donation.

Choose the news. Don’t lose the news.

Monthly direct debit

Annual direct debit

£5 per month supporters get a digital copy of each month’s paper before anyone else, £10 per month supporters get a digital copy of each month’s paper before anyone else and a print copy posted to them each month. £50 annual supporters get a digital copy of each month's paper before anyone else. £84 annual supporters get a print copy by post and a digital copy of each month's before anyone else.